Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY
(LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 30 January.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Tuesday 28 January at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Crime

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of crimes committed in 1991.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): A total of 5.1 million notifiable offences were recorded by the police in the 12 months to the end of September 1991, the latest period for which firm figures are available.

Mr. Hardy: Does not that answer confirm that the increase in crime in the past 12 years has been greater both in proportion and in number than the increase in crime over the previous 12 centuries? Will not the millions of victims of crime feel that the 1979 Conservative law and order policies are humbug? Do not the upholders of law have daily experience of the fact that the greedy society so desired by Conservative Members must inevitably be a bad one?

Mr. Patten: The Home Office research and statistics department is excellent and produces very good figures, but unfortunately we do not have on record the figures for 12 centuries ago. However, I advise the hon. Gentleman that crime has increased throughout the western world during the past half century. The hon. Gentleman should first reflect on the fact that, in his own area of South Yorkshire, the figures to which I have referred show that the incidence of sexual and violent crimes has been going down, not up. He should further refer to and reflect upon the continuous Labour search for excuses for crime rather than for the introduction of any sensible policies to deal with crime. In the end, it is down to a person's individual choice whether to be bad and to commit crime. That cannot be blamed on social factors.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate what percentage of those interesting crime figures are the result of members of the Labour party asking people to break the law?

Mr. Patten: I referred earlier to the excellence of the Home Office research and statistics department when I explained that we do not keep crime figures for the past 12 centuries. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting thought; perhaps I should ask the Department to look into it.

Mr. Hattersley: Why has crime in this country risen by an average of 6 per cent. per year since the war, but by 18 per cent.—three times the usual average—in the past two years?

Mr. Patten: Being assaulted by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on such issues is rather like being attacked by a bread and butter pudding. It looks very substantial on the surface, but when one looks below the surface, one finds nothing of any substance. The right hon. Gentleman's question contains its own answer. If the right hon. Gentleman would only himself address the causes of crime, he would realise that they would certainly not be solved by the suggestion made at the Labour party press conference this morning—that we should empty our prisons to pay for more police. That is what was said by the Labour party which in 1979 left the police forces of this country 8,000 under strength.

Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take a point of order. However, as we shall have to live with each other for the next few months in an electioneering atmosphere, I refer hon. Members to "Erskine May" on moderation in language.

Public Order Act 1986

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to meet the chief constable of Essex to discuss proper implementation of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 in the Thurrock parliamentary constituency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The implementation of section 39 is an operational matter for the chief constable.

Mr. Janman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the ever-increasing frustration and anger among hundreds of my constituents in Grays, Tilbury and South Ockendon, who almost on a weekly basis have to put up with large invasions of mobile itinerants on land near where they live? At the very best, the itinerants create a great deal of filth and rubbish, which the landowner or the council has to clear up. At the worst, they have an unfortunate impact on the local crime figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that chief constables across the country have declared a policy of not invoking section 39 if a civil remedy is available to the landowner? Does he agree that the law should be changed so that the police have a duty rather than just a power to act under section 39?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that a great many people suffer a great many problems because travellers, illegal


trespassers and wandering folk settle on land. Section 39, however, is specifically designed to deal with aggravated trespass. It is not designed to undermine the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which requires local authorities to provide official gipsy sites for those who normally resort to the area. If a local authority does what it is supposed to do under those Acts, it has access to the criminal law to deal speedily and effectively with those who settle unlawfully on land.

Mr. Sayeed: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but does he understand that there is a particular problem with certain councils, such as Avon county council? In the 23 years that that council has been in existence, it has not complied with the 1968 Act. As a consequence, section 39 is useless because the council will not move people off its land. Therefore, it is essential that people who live around the land, and are thus directly affected, should be protected under section 39 so that they can use the law to move people on.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes the point: it is his local authority's duty to comply with the 1968 Act and not for the chief constable to bend section 39 of the 1986 Act.

Sunday Trading

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the operation of the Sunday trading laws.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It remains uncertain whether the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950 continue to form part of our law. But as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained in answer to a private notice question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 27 November 1991, those provisions are not therefore suspended. Parliament has placed the primary responsibility for their enforcement on local authorities and it is for them to decide their own course of action.
For our part, we intend to bring forward proposals for reform of the Sunday trading law once the legal position is clear.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister recall telling the House that the four criteria for the reform of Sunday trading were that it should be practicable, enforceable, and acceptable to the country and that it should command the support of the House? Yesterday the ten-minute Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was overwhelmingly given its First Reading with a majority of 200, with all-party support. Does not the Minister think that it is time to ensure that that Bill is put on the statute book to safeguard what Churchill once described as the greatest of British institutions?

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the anxiety of the House about the state of Sunday trading. I read the ten-minute Bill yesterday. I apologise for not being on the Front Bench for the debate. The result was interesting and certainly one which I shall study carefully. However, it would be foolish to introduce legislation before we know the outcome of the European Court of Justice declaration.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's position puts all the

responsibility as to whether to prosecute on local authorities? Many authorities find that enormously expensive. Are the Government prepared to put up money to assist local authorities if they decide to prosecute in the interests of what they believe ought to be the law, and in fact is the law?

Mrs. Rumbold: It has never been the case that central Government would indemnify local authorities for expenditure when they are already given money through the revenue support grant to enable them to undertake their responsibilities, and that is not a way forward. Nevertheless, local authorities may enforce the law as it stands.

Mr. Loyden: Is not the Minister passing the buck? There is widespread concern and strong opinion throughout the country that the Government are handling this issue most inappropriately. When will the Government take decisive action and end the hell of a mess in that section of industry?

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but it is not so easy as Opposition Members keep asserting. If legislation were introduced at this point it is possible that it would fall foul of the decision by the European Court of Justice and thus be impracticable and a waste of public funds.

Mr. Harris: While accepting that the tremendous European complication about this cannot just be wished away, will my right hon. Friend take note of yesterday's vote and appreciate that a significant number of Conservative Members voted for that Bill. A factor for some of us in so doing was the fact that we have been saddened and sickened at the supermarkets' attitudes in exploiting the European difficulty. When studying possible reforms and changes in the law, will she consider that the decision to open on Sunday is taken not by local supermarket managers but nationally by their boards, and that if there is any change in the law they should be the ones to be prosecuted?

Mrs. Rumbold: The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), was on the Front Bench yesterday and has reported to me the content of the ten-minute Bill and the vote. I fully understand the considerable cross-party support for what was said in the ten-minute Bill, but it is important that we wait a few months to see where the European Court comes down. It will not take long and the Government will then be able to take all those factors into account. One would hope that major retailers will be clear in their minds about their activities and the consequences that may accrue.

Mr. Randall: How many of the major companies that broke the law at Christmas and were not prosecuted are contributors to Conservative party funds?

Mrs. Rumbold: The last time I debated Sunday trading with the hon. Gentleman, he made the perfectly ludicrous suggestion that his party would have a conference on the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] It does not seem to me that there is any need for me to answer his silly question on the subject.

Murder (Provocation)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the law relating to provocation as it affects cases of murder.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber below the Gangway.

Mr. Baker: I am aware of concerns that have been expressed about this aspect of the law. The defences to murder have been reviewed on several occasions, most recently in 1989 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment. There has been no recommendation to change the rule that provocation applies only where the defendant acts with a sudden and temporary loss of self-control. Any change must not make it easier for a defendant to escape conviction for murder in cases where there is a planned or revenge killing.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his interest in the subject. Is he aware that among women serving life sentences in Bullwood Hall women's prison for murdering their husbands there are several whose lack of command of English meant that they were not aware that there was anywhere that they could run to, that some women who had tried to run away from extreme brutality were dragged back by their families, and that some were terrified of leaving their children with a brutal partner, and that therefore they had to wait until they could do something about it and were driven to commit murder? Technically, they did not qualify for the defence of provocation, but their cases are heart-rending and should evoke a change in attitude towards the type of defence that women in those circumstances can claim.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has been to see me about this matter with a group of colleagues. I am sure that she will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly those among the ones that she has mentioned that might come before me.
I understand the concern that has been expressed in the House and in the country about this. However, I cannot condone, as a response to violence, the killing of the person who does that violence. There is concern about the law in this area and I believe that the arguments on it are finely balanced. Before we rush into changes to the homicide law, we must ensure that such changes do not do more harm than good. I assure the House that I shall keep this matter under the most careful review.

Mr. Ashley: I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary received a deputation and undertook to consider taking on my Bill. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman could not go any further at that time, but is he aware that his argument that a change in the defence of provocation might allow for revenge killings is wrong and invalid because juries would not accept it in the case of revenge killings? Will he bear it in mind that the law as it stands does great injustice and that many women are suffering life sentences that they should not be suffering? Will the Home Secretary think again, please?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he presented his case to me, although I hope that he did not take away from our meeting any

belief that I was totally persuaded by the argument that he put forward. The House of Lords Select Committee looked into this matter just two years ago. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Committee recommended that the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility and the offence of infanticide should be retained.
This is an important matter, particularly as it affects violence, and violence more perpetrated on the woman than on the man. One must not open up the possibility for either partner in a marriage or a relationship to murder their partner, not as a result of a sudden, temporary loss of control, but as a result of a careful, well thought out and premeditated plan. That is why the balance of the argument in this matter is so fine.

Europol

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss further progress in the Europol proposals.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Outline proposals for the establishment of Europol were approved at the meeting of the European Council in Maastricht in December 1991. Those proposals are now being developed and the United Kingdom has been in the forefront of police co-operation in Europe to combat the growing evil of international crime. Officials from all member states will be meeting regularly to develop the proposals and I shall be meeting my counterparts in June to review progress.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging response and for the work that he and his colleagues are doing on this. Does my right hon. Friend accept that to some extent there is a link between ever closer co-operation among police forces and Community arrangements with Interpol? The public should be spared some of the more bureaucratic checks and delays at ports and airports that will occur, for example, at Dover and elsewhere, when there are too many uniformed officials stopping people unnecessarily. There is a certain linkage, although there are many difficulties. As we are only a year away from the start of the single market, will my right hon. Friend reassure the public that unnecessary bureaucratic delays will not occur at our ports and airports, to the annoyance of the public?

Mr. Baker: That goes rather wide of the question. I should make it absolutely clear that from 1 January 1993 we shall continue to maintain our frontier controls, particularly on matters of international crime, drugs and immigration. One does not want to occasion unnecessary delay in exercising those controls, but they must be sufficiently firm and rigorous to ensure that criminals who try to get into the country are detected and that illegal immigrants are similarly detected and prevented from entering the country.

Mr. Enright: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable concern that the sort of co-operation that exists regarding the police is not subject to proper democratic scrutiny? Will he ensure that all discussions that take place are opened up for us to criticise and assist?

Mr. Baker: As far as the police are concerned, I and my fellow Ministers are answerable to the House. There is a


good co-operation between the British police and police forces on the continent because more and more crime—particularly drugs crime—crosses frontiers. A vast amount of drugs are coming into Europe from north Africa, from central Asia through the Balkans, and from South America. It is important that we work closely with our European partners on this. For example, we have 30 drugs liaison officers—British police and Customs officers—in more than 19 countries. The key factor is the exchange of information to deal with international crime.

Traffic Wardens

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what encouragement he is giving police forces to recruit and use traffic wardens for traffic control duties, particularly to meet seasonal needs.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The recruitment of traffic wardens is the responsibility of individual police authorities and their deployment is an operational matter for individual chief officers.

Mr. Rathbone: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Can he give some information about the way in which the Government can encourage the greater recruitment of traffic wardens up to full complement in police forces and encourage the better use of those wardens so that they make the best possible contribution to the maintenance of traffic flow and the release of police officers for the control of crime?

Mr. Lloyd: The Home Office funds 51 per cent. of traffic warden service costs through the police grant. As my hon. Friend no doubt knows, under the Road Traffic Act 1991, local authorities will be able to seek power to recruit and deploy their own parking attendants in designated areas, and any fines levied go to local authorities to help defray the costs of that service.

Bail Offenders

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to deal with repeated offenders who commit crimes while still on bail; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: We are examining carefully the evidence from a number of recent studies by the police and others of the extent of offending on bail, and considering, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others, what further action might reduce offending by people released on bail. We will announce our conclusions in February.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more could be done in the first instance to prevent offences? Is he aware of the excellent work being done by Crime Concern? Will he produce his White Paper on the subject soon? Is he aware that one Bolton youth was arrested 30 times last year for car crimes?

Mr. Patten: The answer to the first of those three points is that the Home Secretary will shortly be publishing his promised and much looked forward to paper on criminal prevention. The answer to the second is that I agree that Crime Concern, which enjoys all-party support in the House, does excellent work. The answer to the third is that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced new guidelines

which can be passed from the magistrates to the social services to ensure that from October this year juveniles can be remanded in custody under certain conditions not previously available to the courts.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that not only juveniles but adults are committing crimes while on bail and that many crimes now being committed by adults while on bail involve firearms? Does he agree that it is time we had a real clampdown on the possession of firearms throughout society, remembering that the problem will not be cured unless the Home Office takes strenuous action in relation to the legal as well as the illegal holding of firearms?

Mr. Patten: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the recent rise in the number of crimes involving firearms. There were about 9,000 last year, of which about only 4 per cent. involved replica firearms. We have the toughest sentences available in any country in western Europe for the carrying of firearms. Carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime can attract up to a life sentence. New sentences became available to the courts with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and quite right too.

Mr. Barry Field: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the delegation that I led to the Lord Chancellor to consider the problem of bail bandits and light sentencing by Crown courts, and to the concern in my constituency that the Hampshire police authority is short changing the Isle of Wight in terms of the number of constables on the beat?

Mr. Patten: The answer to my hon. Friend's last point is that when the Secretary of State made his announcement about the additional real 1,000 police coming on stream this year, he said that 80 per cent. of them should go straight on to the beat. The answer to his first point is that it is absolutely clear that a number of people who break their bail conditions are remanded in custody when they are brought back to the court; but that happens in only about six out of 10 cases, and in four out of 10 cases when those who break their bail conditions are brought back to the court, it seems that they are no longer remanded in custody but are again let out on bail.

Mr. Hattersley: On the subject of repeated offences, will the junior Minister now say why crime has risen on average by 6 per cent. each year since the war but rose by 18 per cent. last year?

Mr. Patten: There are a number of reasons for crime. You, Mr. Speaker, would not permit me to give a full answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, which reminds me of a minute that I sent out, when I went to the Home Office in 1987, to the then permanent secretary. It simply said, "Please, what causes crime?" Reasonably enough, I have never had an answer. The decisions of individual men and women to commit bad acts is what causes crime. It is no good the Labour party seeking again and again—as it did this morning—excuses for why people offend. Rather, it should look for ways of dealing with those people when they have offended and ways of preventing offending.

Mr. Shersby: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance yet to read the excellent report submitted to him by the chief constable of Northumbria about the problem of constant reoffending on bail? Is he aware that that


problem is made worse by a small hard core of young criminals who offend again and again, but that that is not always known to the justices? What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take?

Mr. Patten: As I said in answer to the main question, in the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will make in February, we shall be able to give a fuller answer than I can give now. We have in the Home Office a copy of the very helpful report by the chief constable of Northumbria and we have also been greatly assisted by the work of the members of the Police Federation, who have co-operated in the analysis of the serious problem of offending on bail.

Life Imprisonment

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the guidelines for the period of imprisonment to be served before prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment will be released on licence.

Mrs. Rumbold: The main considerations in deciding whether to release such a prisoner are whether he or she has been detained long enough to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence for the offence and whether the potential risk to the public is judged to be acceptable.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister will be aware of my concern about the period of imprisonment served by persons who murder members of the security forces. A clear disparity exists between the guideline in England and Wales of 20-plus years' imprisonment and the practice in Northern Ireland of about 13 years' imprisonment before murderers of soldiers and policemen are released. Does the Minister agree that if that issue came before the European Court of Human Rights, under the reasoning in the Dudgeon case, the court would almost certainly hold that it is contrary to the anti-discrimination article in the convention to have two different regimes operating within one country? Would it not, be advisable, therefore, to have a uniform regime—which need not necessarily be the same as either existing regime—rather than wait until such a system is imposed on us?

Mrs. Rumbold: What the European Court of Justice may decide is a matter of pure speculation. In essence, the matter is for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some classes of cases, retribution and deterrence are never satisfactory? In the case of terrorist crimes, it is about time that we had a sentence of indefinite imprisonment until terrorism ends.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. We regard murders committed in this country by terrorists as deserving a minimum of 20 years' imprisonment for those people. That marks the public's revulsion at acts of gratuitous violence against innocent victims. No matter for how long a period lifers are detained, the Home Secretary will release those people only if he considers that it is safe to do so.

Parliamentary Representation

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the level of parliamentary representation from England; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: In the past 12 months, we have received four letters on this subject from hon. Members. A private Member's motion was debated in the House on 8 March 1991.

Mr. Dunn: I wish to put two propositions to my right hon. Friend: first, the English are under-represented in the House; and, secondly, the Scots are over-represented here. If my right hon. Friend agrees with either or both contentions, what will the Government do about that?

Mrs. Rumbold: Occasionally, when I am ironing, I consider the possibility of having a constituency which is called Mitcham, Morden and Mole Valley. That is not, however, a possibility, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) represents an area a little bit down the road in the county of Surrey. I am told that the same considerations of constituency difficulty, demography and geography would apply to rearranging the constituencies within Scotland. It is for that reason, I believe, that the Government have decided that we should maintain the present system.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Dartford—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will pay attention for a moment. Is the Minister aware that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to worry about the level of representation in England because every time a Tory is defeated in Scotland he flees the country, comes down here and tries to get a Tory seat? I refer, for example, to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), Ian Sproat, Michael Ancram, and Gerry Malone. The problem for the hon. Member for Dartford is that, once he has been defeated at the next election, he will be replaced as a candidate by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that those Scotsmen who come down here to represent English constituencies are the best of the Scotsmen, who choose to come down here to represent one of the 523 constituencies in this country.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that there has been a large influx of people into Dorset, including many people from Scotland and from Wales. If my hon. Friend will look at the recommendations already coming from the Boundary Commission, she will see that it recommends that there should be eight rather than seven seats in Dorset. That would have some benefit in the forthcoming election if she could push it through. I wonder whether she can.

Mrs. Rumbold: The whole House will be very relieved to know that such a matter is not entirely in a Minister's hands. I understand that, if that change occurs, the Conservative party will certainly benefit by an extra constituency.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that when the wishes of the people of Scotland are reflected in the decision to set up a Scottish parliament, it will indeed


make sense to reduce the representation of Scots in the House? Does she recognise that the inequity and injustice done to her party through, for example, no Conservative Members of Parliament being returned in 12 Glasgow constituencies would be redressed by the granting of proportional representation throughout the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's arguments that to have proportional representation would necessarily persuade Glaswegians to vote Conservative. I hope that the Government's policies will persuade Glaswegians to think carefully about whether to vote Conservative in the next general election.

Sir Peter Emery: Seriously, as the Boundary Commission proceeds with its report over the next 10 years, would not it be correct to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom had the same proportion of representatives? That would solve the whole problem.

Mrs. Rumbold: As my hon. Friend knows, this matter has been discussed quite recently within both the Government and the Home Affairs Select Committee. Equitable representation is very hard to achieve. When the Boundary Commission looks at these matters over every 10 years or so, demography and demographic conditions have to be considered, and it is less easy than it appears on paper simply to provide consistency in terms of the demographic relationship of the people living in the country and the number of Members representing them in the House. Inevitably, it would mean that there would be more and more people coming into the House to represent constituencies unless some kind of control were exercised.

Mr. Darling: I think that the Minister is saying that the Government's view is that the basis of representation should remain the same—in which case, I am glad. Will she tell some of her hon. Friends that a recent independent study has shown that if the basis of representation in Scotland were equated with that in England, the Conservative party in Scotland would cease to be an endangered species and become an extinct species? Some of the remarks made by Conservative Members show the foresight and planning of the dodo.

Mrs. Rumbold: I suspect that these matters will be discussed on a number of occasions in the future, but the Opposition should not be too complacent about the attitudes and voting patterns of those north of the border for ever and a day.

Vehicle Security

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from motor car manufacturers regarding their intentions to improve motor car security.

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on initiatives taken to improve vehicle security.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have had three meetings with car manufacturers. I will be meeting them again in March. I have urged manufacturers to fit to all new cars dead-locks, immobilisation devices and visible identification numbers. I am pleased that they have responded very positively.
Car crime, principally by young males, accounts for nearly 30 per cent. of all recorded crime. Our major crime prevention campaign this year will be against car crime, and the courts will soon have available the additional penalties under the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for that reply. When the Home Secretary meets the car manufacturers in March, will he impress on them the seriousness of the situation and consider compelling them to fit such devices as standard, bearing in mind that, last weekend alone, £100,000 worth of damage was caused by car theft in my constituency?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. When I first met the car manufacturers, they did not appear to be taking the matter very seriously at all, but my last meeting with them revealed that they are now much more prepared to make their cars more secure. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Whether we can make it compulsory for cars to be fitted with such devices is a matter for the European Commission. My Department and the Secretary of State for Transport have already made submissions to the Commission that a standard high level of security—as high as we have in Britain—should be enforced across Europe.

Mr. Roger King: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative in talking to the manufacturers about improved vehicle security. Will he tell the House what support he has had for his additional measure, the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill, which will surely go a long way towards stopping the theft of motor vehicles? Will he assure the House that he has had the unreserved support of the Opposition during the passage of that Bill?

Mr. Baker: Regrettably, we did not receive very much support because, in Committee, the Opposition voted against the major proposals in the Bill. That is the trouble with the Labour party: one has to distinguish between its rhetoric and reality when it comes to law and order. This morning, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that he wanted to see more policemen on the beat, yet when he was a member of the last Labour Cabinet he cut the number of policemen and left the police force under strength.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Home Secretary confirm that he is about to launch a £5 million campaign involving the glitzy television commercials that have been his trademark in every office of state that he has held? Is not it a fact that he never learns from experience? Last year, his May campaign—national crime prevention week—cost £4.5 million, yet the three-months' figures for crime following that expenditure showed an upsurge in crime. When will the Government spend less on advertising and more on the police and crime prevention?

Mr. Baker: We have increased expenditure on crime prevention and the police much more than the previous Labour Government, who cut it by 3 per cent. I can confirm, however, that on 11 February I shall announce a major campaign—car crime prevention year. It will be a highly successful campaign and will cost £5 million. It will be supported by BMW, Citroen, Ford, Honda, Peugeot, Renault, Rover, Toyota, Vauxhall, Volkswagen and Volvo and most of the major insurance companies in Britain. They are uniting with us to reduce crime.
The hon. Gentleman again raised the question of law and order. I shall be only too pleased to fight the next election on the basis of the record on law and order and to show that we have a very much better record than the last Labour Government.

Mr. Favell: In reply to the main question, my right hon. Friend said that he had had discussions with motor vehicle manufacturers. Has he had any discussions with motor vehicle insurers? Many criteria are used to determine motor vehicle insurance premiums. Should not anti-theft devices be one of them? As someone who has recently paid an enormously increased premium, I think that that would be an excellent idea.

Mr. Baker: I met the insurance companies of Britain on three occasions. In October, they issued a new set of tariffs which provide that a car owner who suffers a loss has to make a larger contribution and introduce the principle and concept of a premium reduction for certain security devices.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed to Prime Minister's Questions, may I remind the House of what I said on Tuesday? Questions on matters of policy should relate to policy options available to the Prime Minister. They should not consist of invitations to comment directly on the policies of other parties in the House, for which the Prime Minister has no responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Barnes: The Prime Minister has cut 110,000 training places in the past year. Furthermore, training schemes do not produce the skills or the qualifications for the jobs that are needed in Britain at this time. Is that because, as the Prime Minister said in another interview with Sue Lawley, from his point of view qualifications "are wholly useless"?

The Prime Minister: Despite the unfavourable economic climate, both youth training and employment training continue to help young and unemployed people on a very substantial scale to go into further training and further education. Very large numbers of young people are being helped. We are investing enormous sums in training, in enterprise and in vocational education—two and a half times as much, after taking account of inflation, as was invested by the Labour party when it was last in government.

Romford (Visit)

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to make an official visit to Romford.

The Prime Minister: I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Essex among them.

Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend be assured that any time that he cares to come to Romford, Essex men and Essex women will throng the streets in their thousands? In the meantime, will he give my constituents an assurance that he welcomes the report of the three wise men on primary education, and that the Government fully subscribe to the importance of the three Rs? Will he confirm that it is our top priority to get back to the basics in education and to sweep away the leftist progressive teaching methods that, having been put to the test, have failed?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend couches his invitation to visit Essex in irresistible terms.
The report that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday is extremely important. It challenges some of the teaching methods that have been used in recent years and it suggests that schools should concentrate on commonsense, practical teaching. I believe that that is what parents want and that it is the best way to ensure that children are taught the essentials. We certainly hope that both schools and teachers will adopt the proposals in the report.

Engagements

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: The Prime Minister will be well aware of the appalling environmental problems in the Fal estuary arising from the water pollution after the closure of the Wheal Jane mine. I do not think that people in Cornwall want to allocate blame at the moment, but they do want to ensure that the environmental clean-up is carried out both in the short term and the long term without hold-ups. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there are no financial problems at any stage in ensuring that the long-term and short-term clean-ups take place?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we set up the National Rivers Authority specifically to respond in the first instance to the sort of pollution incidents to which he refers—this one is a very serious incident. The NRA has been closely monitoring the situation since the mine closed. It had developed contingency plans before the incident and put them into effect when water in the mine began to overflow. I am sure that the NRA considers that it will be able to deal with the problem with the resources that it has.

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports from the German chambers of commerce which show that German industry has invested £7.8 billion in this country


in recent years? Does not that demonstrate that low taxation, low inflation and good industrial relations are the basis for strong investment, including inward investment; and does it not also show that the future of this country is excellent under this Government?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I have also seen the important comments of the CBI, which set out the fact that Britain now attracts nearly half of all the inward investment from Japan that comes to the European Community. I believe that, by investing here, German and Japanese companies and those of other countries have shown their confidence in the British economy. It is a shame that some of the gloom and doom-mongers in this country do not share that confidence.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government the British economy is in its longest recession since the second world war?

The Prime Minister: I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that he will be pleased to hear what the European Community has to say, that the United Kingdom is the only country where signals of a sustained economic recovery are discernible, by contrast with a tendency towards gradual slackening of growth continuing in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal.

Mr. Kinnock: Slightly closer to home, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British chambers of commerce today report that this is the seventh consecutive quarter in which the United Kingdom economy has suffered from recession, with levels of economic activity continuing to decline? Is not it clear that the recession caused by the Prime Minister's policies is continuing because of the Prime Minister's paralysis?

The Prime Minister: The British chambers of commerce are clearly wrong about the seventh consecutive quarter. That would imply that the recession started in the second quarter of 1990, which it clearly did not, because output rose between the first and second quarters of 1990.
I notice also that the president of the chambers of commerce said that British industry and commerce were on
an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession".

Mr. Kinnock: Will not the Prime Minister refer to the report and listen to the voices of business and commerce from all over the country when they say:
A worsening position on employment expectations,"—
higher job losses—
and a major down-grading of business confidence, however, give no cause for comfort in this survey"?
How can the Prime Minister be so complacent and so indolent when he is receiving advice that something now needs to be done?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I quoted from the president of that particular group of chambers of commerce. The report itself says:
an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession.
The right hon. Gentleman should look at other surveys and forecasters. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International

Monetary Fund both forecast recovery. What is equally clear among business men is that they have no enthusiasm whatever for a Labour Government. A survey of the top hundred British companies showed that 63 per cent. of them believed that recession would get worse under a Labour Government, and not one of them believed that it would get better.

Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to tell the House of the decision made yesterday to restore to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the gold deposited for safe keeping in the Bank of England but misappropriated by the then Labour Government with the support in the Division Lobby of the leader and Chief Whip of the Liberal party at that time?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that when I met President Landsbergis yesterday I was able to indicate that we would be returning the gold. As the House well knows, the Labour Government in 1967 ordered the gold to be sold. The then Conservative Opposition roundly opposed that, and I am delighted that this Conservative Government have been able to correct that smear of dishonour.

United Nations

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: I shall chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 31 January.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Prime Minister confirm that 140 nations have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including Tory Canada? Why cannot this Tory Government honour their pledge under the treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons, which will mean the withdrawal of Polaris—which is literally cracking up—and the saving of £10 billion on Trident, to be spent on the national health service to care for lives instead of threatening them with mass murder?
If nuclear non-proliferation—

Hon. Members: More, more.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very unseemly.

Mr. Cryer: Quite so, Mr. Speaker.
If nuclear non-proliferation is good enough for the rest of the world, why is not it good enough for us?

The Prime Minister: We seek to promote non-proliferation and disarmament, and that will be one of the matters to be discussed at the United Nations Security Council meeting that I shall chair next week. But I must say to the hon. Gentleman who suggests that it would be appropriate at present for this country to scrap its nuclear weapons and Trident that to do so would leave the country wholly defenceless. That may be the view of the hon. Gentleman. It may even be the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their secret hearts. It is not the right policy for this country, it is not the policy of the Government and I hope that the Opposition will make clear how many of their members support that policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament rather than a policy of secure defences for this country.

Mr. Bellingham: When my right hon. Friend visits the United Nations, will he raise the issue of the RAF aircrew


who were shot down over the Gulf, some of whom came from west Norfolk? They were tortured, humiliated and abused in gross contravention of the Geneva convention. Is it time that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice?

The Prime Minister: I strongly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is a matter for discussion at the special Security Council meeting next week; it is certainly a matter which remains on our agenda.

Engagements

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Douglas: The Prime Minister's view of an expanded Europea, Community, composed of many states in eastern Europea together with existing members, is extremely attractive, but will he contrast that with the instability within the United Kingdom because the aspirations of a nationwide Scotland are frustrated by its being unable to secure its independence and membership of the Community? Will he take steps to have that issue ventilated in a multi-question referendum of the people, which could perhaps be held in harmony with the general election?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the European Community. That is the right way forward for this

country, the European Community and the wider Europe which I hope in due course will join the Community. The hon. Gentleman spoke about devolution. The Union has served Scotland and England well. In terms of a debate, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has called for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee and I hope that everyone will contribute to them.

Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase the top limit on national insurance contributions because of the plight in which that would place many of my constituents and people in neighbouring Blackpool who earn under £15,000 a year but during the holiday season earn more than £400 a week?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will need no such encouragement. The policy suggested by my hon. Friend would hit many people on modest incomes who have bonus or overtime earnings and who occasionally earn above £390 a week. Such an impost would be quite contrary to the policies of the Government and the Conservative party and we shall not introduce any such policy.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House please tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Motions on the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order and the Electricity (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order

TUESDAY 28 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Prison Security Bill.

Motion on the Uncertificated Securities Regulations

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.

WEDNESDAY 29 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Education (Schools) Bill.

THURSDAY 30 JANUARY—Motions on the English revenue support grant reports, followed by motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 31 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Until Seven o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Motions on the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order and the African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 29 January to consider European Community documents Nos. 7573/91, 8122/91 and 10157/91 relating to satellite broadcasting standards.

[Wednesday 29 January 1992

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 7573/91 Satellite Broadcasting of Television Signals
(b) 8122–91 Programmes for High Definition Television Services
(c) 10157/91 Satellite Broadcasting of Television Signals

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-xxx (1990–91), HC 24-ii (1991–92) and HC 24-v (1991–92)
(b) HC 24-iv (1991–92)
(c) HC 24-vii (1991–92)

Thursday 30 January

English Revenue Support Grant Reports

1. Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1992–93
2. Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England)
3. The Population Report (England) (No. 3)
4. The Special Grant Report (No. 3)

Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports

1. Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1992–93 (HC 151)
2. Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 3) (HC 152)
3. Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 3) (HC 153).]

Dr. Cunningham: May I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for responding so promptly to our request for debates on the revenue support grant orders for England and Wales? Will he assure us that, before the House rises tomorrow, we shall have the revenue support grant order documents for England available in the Vote Office? I realise that the debate is not until Thursday, but I am sure that it would be helpful to the House to have the documents that are the subject of the debate.
On the same subject, will the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on the latest poll tax fiasco—the decision by the courts not to allow computer evidence to be used by local authorities in pursuit of more than 7 million claims for non-payment? Does not this latest poll tax mess confirm everything that we have said from the Dispatch Box about the grotesque inefficiency of this capricious and unfair tax? Ought we not to have a statement as soon as possible to help local authorities and to inform all those people who are paying the tax about exactly what the Government intend to do?
Why does not the Leader of the House help his hon. Friends and the Opposition by giving us more Supply day time? We are always hearing bogus claims by Conservative Members that they want more time to debate Labour party policy. We too should like to debate policies on industry, especially in view of the latest fall in industrial output and the awful news contained in the report of the Associated British Chambers of Commerce. But yet again the Leader of the House is denying the Opposition the opportunity to choose the subject for debate by not providing Supply day time. Will he assure us that he will provide some time the week after next?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the orders being brought forward. As he knows, it is necessary to debate them very soon. That is relevant to the question about Supply days, to which I shall return in a moment. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the orders will be published and will be available in the Vote Office tomorrow.
On his second point, about the community charge and its enforcement, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a considerable distinction between the community charge and the procedures in the magistrates courts when people do not pay their community charge and local authorities take action against them. The two are distinct. There is no reason why people should not pay their community charge: that is the most important point on the issue.
As for the proceedings in the magistrates courts, the Government are looking urgently at the matter. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are giving it great attention. There is nothing in that aspect which means in any way that people should not be paying their community charge, because there are many people on comparatively low incomes who may have to suffer because others are not paying. I hope that no one in the House will do anything but encourage people to pay the community charge.
On the third point, about Supply days, we had a debate only yesterday on economic matters; industrial matters could have been included in that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have two Supply day debates today. He will see from the business next week that there are a number of


matters which are very important, and he will see that there is private business. I shall see what I can do about another Supply day in the week after that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back Benchers, may I remind them that we have today two debates, both of which are heavily over-subscribed? I have no ability to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches today. Furthermore, there is another statement. I propose to limit business questions to go on until 4 o'clock, when we shall move to the next statement. May I remind the House that questions should be directed to business next week and not to wider issues for which there may be other opportunities?

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend consider, as there is no debate on the subject next week, the urgent necessity for a full debate on civil air transport policy, since the chairman of the Association of European Airlines and boss of Alitalia has warned that next summer, unless something urgent is done to overhaul air traffic control systems in Europe, the whole air transport industry may snarl up and gradually come to a halt?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that we are at the stage in the process where a large number of Bills are coming from the other place or from Committees. That business is taking a considerable amount of the time of the House, rightly and inevitably. I cannot therefore promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the subject.

Sir David Steel: May I refer the Leader of the House to the answer given by the Prime Minister a moment ago about the need for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee on the future government of Scotland? Will he use his good offices to try to get those debates under way? They are long overdue. The Secretary of State for Scotland seems to think that we can have them without a statement on Government policy on the future government of Scotland. That is what we want.

Mr. MacGregor: We have offered to have debates. My right hon. Friend has indicated that he would like to see them and has suggested that that is an appropriate way of having all the issues fully aired. I hope that discussions are under way to achieve that.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate early-day motion 448, standing in my name and supported by a substantial number of hon. Members from all parties, welcoming the Government's support for the repeal of the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution of the United Nations?
[That this House welcomes the decision of the United Nations general assembly to repeal the notorious U.N.G.A. Resolution 3379/75 of 10th November 1975, normally known as the 'Zionism is Racism' resolution; congratulates Her Majesty's Government for ensuring that the United Kingdom voted for repeal, just as it originally voted against the 1975 resolution; thanks President Bush for leading the diplomatic activity which produced the repeal of that infamous slur on the Jewish people; but notes with regret that 25 nations voted against repeal, including such totalitarian dictatorships as Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria.]

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that resolution. As we have made clear, we warmly welcome the repeal of the resolution. We co-sponsored the repealing resolution and played a full part in ensuring that it was adopted by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there have been very disturbing reports this week about Fisons' pharmaceutical production standards by the American Food and Drug Administration, but that British inspectors' reports are kept secret? As the public are the consumers of these goods, may we have a debate next week so that we can discuss that very important information?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate next week. The right hon. Gentleman has other ways of raising the matter, but I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend referred to the discussions that are to take place next Wednesday in European Standing Committee B on European satellite standards. He will be aware that the draft directive under discussion would, if implemented, commit the spending of many millions of pounds of European taxpayers' money to propagating a transmission system that virtually nobody in Europe would be able to watch. Expenditure of that magnitude might be a mere bagatelle to those who sit on the Opposition Benches, but the Department of Trade and Industry, and those who sit on this side of the House, are resisting that draft directive. Can my right hon. Friend find time for the whole House to debate that issue, so that a very clear message can be sent to the European Commission?

Mr. MacGregor: It would not be appropriate for the whole House to debate the matter, because the Standing Committee is to consider it next week. However, I would point out to my hon. Friend, who I know takes a great interest in these matters, that part of the new European Standing Committee process is that we very much hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House who have an interest in a particular subject will attend the meetings. In that way, they will be able to make their points. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to do that next week. Moreover, the report of the Standing Committee will eventually be debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. James Lamond: Could we have additional information, perhaps by means of a statement next week, about those whose homes are being repossessed? Only this morning, I tried to intervene on behalf of a constituent whose home is being repossessed. When I reminded the lending society of what we had been told last week in the House of Commons, I was told, "We do not know very much about it; discussions are continuing, and it will be some time before any decisions are made." In the meantime, many thousands of people are in the greatest anxiety about what will happen to them. Can we be given an update?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been pleased to see that one building society has now reached agreement on the mortgages-to-rents scheme. That has already been announced. He will also know that, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the


Exchequer made his statement in December on the outcome of the talks with the building societies, we intimated that we should be introducing a Bill to deal with the social security aspects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has introduced that Bill today, and the House will have an opportunity to debate it shortly.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on the community care programme so that we can be told how it is to be imlemented by the Government? A number of my constituents and their relatives are very anxious about the proposed closure of Westwood hospital in Bradford. If that hospital is closed, there will be nowhere for mentally handicapped people to go, if community care is a failure, and I suspect that to be the case in many areas. This is an urgent and increasing problem. The Government ought to provide time for a debate on the subject.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman noted that successive Governments have adopted a community care policy. Such a policy is now being implemented by the Government, with considerable expenditure. Spending on the social services has gone up faster, in real terms, than the number of elderly people. Nearly £2 billion is being spent to provide support for people in their own surroundings in the community. That policy involves considerable expenditure. I cannot promise a debate next week on the particular example that the hon. Gentleman gave.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the leader of Derbyshire county council, whose policies have led to redundancy for hundreds of teachers yet who has managed to ensure for himself a well-paid part-time job, at a salary equivalent to £40,000 a year, with the loss-making, council-controlled Derbyshire enterprise board? Is that not a unique example of the rat building himself a cosy lifeboat before abandoning the ship that he himself has sunk?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend will find many opportunities to draw attention to the great inadequacies of Derbyshire county council. I have certainly found much about it to criticise when visiting the county, not least when I was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I hope that my hon. Friend will find ways of raising that point in the House again.

Mr. Rupert Allason: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 546 on the subject of software piracy?
[That this House notes that the culture of criminality at Mirror Group Newspapers continues; expresses concern that much of the computer software used by the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror was illicit; welcomes the news that a substantial sum has been paid by MGN plc to the programme manufacturers in compensation; and urges MGN directors to consider resignation in recognition of the mismanagement perpetuated under Robert Maxwell and his successor.]
Will he please find time in the business of the House next week for a debate on the subject of software piracy and the continuing culture of illegality at Mirror Group

Newspapers? What advice would he give Sir Peter Parker, a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, who has suggested that he will clean that Augean stable?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand that, regrettably, the illicit use of computer software is widespread. I have indeed seen my hon. Friend's early-day motion. Copyright owners are actively enforcing their statutory rights against such activities in both the public and private sectors. The Government welcome the fact that several bodies have reached mutually acceptable agreements with the copyright owners.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I refer the Leader of the House to a matter of extreme urgency, which I referred to him on 11 December, regarding the total moratorium on public expenditure in Northern Ireland, both capital and revenue, and to the dire consequences of that for commerce, industry and employment? On 11 December, the right hon. Gentleman generously said that he would refer that matter to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but the only reply that I have received is a letter that was dated the day before a certain written answer was tabled in the Library, giving no details whatsoever. It is absolutely imperative that at least the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland, if not the House as a whole, should debate the fact that there is a total ban on public expenditure in Northern Ireland. We are told that we could debate this in the spring estimates, but that would be too late in the fiscal year.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there has been no reduction in the total volume of public expenditure in Northern Ireland that is planned for this year. It is currently running at £6.5 billion. The moratorium relates to new contracts only and, at most, will last until the end of this financial year. Work on contracts already let is unaffected. Clearly, it is necessary to keep within the total public expenditure plans. That is part of good budgeting and that is why the moratorium has had to be introduced.

Mr. John Marshall: In our debates on the Education (Schools) Bill, will it be in order to refer to the threat to education standards and parental choice, the suggested abolition of grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, and to the threat of an increase in private school fees of 30 per cent?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows that I am strongly supportive of the positive aspects of those policies, and would be extremely concerned at any suggestion that the policies of other parties might have a severe effect upon them. Given that the Education (Schools) Bill relates to the whole issue of greater choice for parents and to greater parental knowledge of what is available in our schools, I expect that some of his points will be within the terms of the Third Reading debate at least.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for an early debate on the minimum wage? Is he aware that 4.5 million people in this country would benefit from a minimum wage, of whom 80 per cent. are women? Before we get the usual propaganda from central office, will he explain why all our EC partners and our main competitors, such as Australia, New Zealand


and the United States, have a minimum wage which appears to cause them no problems? Is it not time that we came into the 21st century?

Mr. MacGregor: I would certainly be happy to find time for a debate on the minimum wage to enable us to refute the charge that so many of those other countries have minimum wage proposals precisely along the lines advocated by the Labour party.
Such a debate would also enable us to state the serious danger to jobs, including part-time jobs, and the big increase in unemployment that would result from a minimum wage. It would also enable us to bring out the fact that, as a result of the Labour party's support for the social chapter, national insurance contributions would also be brought to bear on many part-time workers, thus reducing their incomes. I would be happy to have such a debate, but it cannot be next week.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate on the future management of Government business in the House? My right hon. Friend may have noted that the Leader of the Opposition has announced today that he predicts that a Labour Government after the general election would have a majority of 20. My right hon. Friend will also note that yesterday an amendment was tabled by 25 Labour Members in which they called for socialist policies, arms cuts, harnessing of the national savings—whatever that means—and restoration of so-called trade union rights. During such a debate, could not the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether he would capitulate to the demands of such a group, and, if not, how he would control it?

Mr. MacGregor: We do not need a debate on the management of the House to explore those points. Indeed, they were made effectively yesterday. There will be other opportunities for raising precisely those points without such a debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will find the time to do so. I am sure that he agrees with me that there is no basis for the Leader of the Opposition's expectation of such a majority.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Health about the alarming state of affairs at the John Radcliffe hospital at Bicester? In November last year, Fred Hobson, 62, with heart trouble, went in for a heart operation. He was there three days and was then turned away because there were not sufficient facilities. In December he went back and got the same treatment. In January, he was told not to come. Three days ago, he was turned away again. Will the Leader of the House make sure that those Tory spivs who run the health service in Oxfordshire are the ones who are turned away—rather than Fred Hobson, who was turned away from the hospital—and get the operation done?

Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) can tell us where in Bicester there is a John Radcliffe hospital? No such place exists.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what is said here. I am sure that the Leader of the House will know about that.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not know the details of that case, and it sounds as if the hon. Gentleman may not either. I know that the hospital is not in his constituency, so it is not

appropriate for him to seek ways of raising the matter in the House. Certainly, I would be happy to have many opportunities in the House to debate the great success and progress made under our national health service reforms.

Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend will have noted that, despite yesterday's debate on the autumn statement, there is still widespread ignorance among some hon. Members about the optimism about the United Kingdom economy shown by distinguished bodies abroad. With that in mind, I have a suggestion. Will my right hon. Friend consider, in advance of the next economic debate—I am sorry that it is not next week—tabling a list of quotations from bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Community, so that we can start the debate with the facts? That might help right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to conclude with the facts.

Mr.MacGregor: We can certainly consider that suggestion. I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would wish to consider it. But every time that favourable comments are made about the United Kingdom economy—including, for example, that made by the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce about the successful operation of German-owned companies in the United Kingdom—which contrasted with the view that it took of industrial relations in the 1970s, the Labour party seeks to shout them down because it does not want to know.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging a debate next week on the plight of the homeless? Does he realise that, of the 180,000 homeless people, 156,000 are between 16 and 25, that one in four children are homeless and that 34,000 of them are in Scotland? Could he also do something about debating the 53,000 people now in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman said that one in four children were homeless, I am sure that he did not mean to say it. That is a ludicrous charge. We have debated these matters in the House. The Government have taken considerable steps to provide facilities for the homeless. There is not an opportunity for a debate on the matter next week, but it might be possible to make some remarks about it during Thursday's business. I cannot promise any debate next week.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House consider changing the order of business next week so that there may be an urgent debate on pensioners and unearned income? [Interruption.] Bearing in mind the Labour party's policy of imposing a 9 per cent. surcharge on unearned income over £3,000, we have a duty to tell millions of pensioners the disastrous effects that the Opposition's policies would have on their life style and means of survival. [Interruption.]

Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that I do not see, within the terms of next week's business, the opportunity to debate that subject, but I hope that before too long we can yet again raise the question of what the Labour party is saying about tax on investment income, which would clearly affect many people with modest incomes, many with incomes well below £20,000. From the noises which


have just been made, it would once again seem that there is a considerable lack of clarity about the Opposition's tax policies. The more we hear from them, the more we realise that the amount of revenue is decreasing and therefore the gap between their expenditure and tax policies is getting greater.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Wales to come to the House early next week to clarify the major initiative, which he announced in the Liverpool Daily Post yesterday, to set up an all-Wales body, nominated by him, which would include representatives from the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, local government and some hon. Members from the House, to—in the words of the statement—help him "to run Wales"? Should a statement on that matter not have been made to the House rather than leaked to the Liverpool Daily Post? If that is Government policy, surely we need a statement at an early date.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: May we have a debate on attempts to suppress democratic discussion of vital national issues in light of the decision of Mirror Group Newspapers—for so long, the voice of Robert Maxwell—to refuse paid advertising from a political party and consequently deny their hard-pressed pensioners some revenue?

Mr. MacGregor: If I can guess at what my hon. Friend is referring to, if the group will not take the advertising, we shall certainly get the case over in many other ways to the people who are likely to be affected by Labour's tax and spending policies.

Mr. Dave Nellist: May I return the Leader of the House to the issue that I raised last week—the illegal use of computer evidence in magistrates courts? He told me last week and the shadow Leader of the House today that the Government were giving that matter urgent consideration. Has he seen early-day motion 539, which I tabled last night after the judgment given by the senior stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Christopher Bourke, after five days study?
[That this House notes the decision of Mr. Christopher Bourke, the Clerkenwell stipendiary magistrate, on Tuesday 22nd January, to reject the use of computer records in magistrates' courts as amounting to hearsay evidence; believes that this stems from the failure of the Home Office to issue the appropriate commencement order to the Civil Evidence Act 1968; believes that, in regard to poll tax cases, the Government's options are limited, to either not extending the legal use of computer records, which presumably will require the presence of a council officer with personal knowledge of each individual case to swear on oath as to the particular individual circumstances, or to extend the use of the Act to allow the legal use of computer records and face a possible challenge on any of the seven million liability orders already granted in England and Wales, particularly those that led on to nearly 200 imprisonments; and calls for all poll tax cases to be halted until this is sorted out.]
That judgment backs up what I told the Leader of the House last week and what I have been telling the House for

more than a year—that flawed procedures are being used in magistrates courts to railroad more than 7 million people through the courts and to put almost 200 people in prison. Why will the Leader of the House not announce not merely that urgent consideration is being given to the matter but that all poll tax cases will be halted forthwith until the situation is resolved?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that the Government are considering the matter urgently. Nothing that has happened in some recent cases provides any reason for people who are liable to pay the community charge failing to do so.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on education, and especially on the local authorities' responsibilities and their relationship with Government in terms of school organisation, so that I may highlight the need for an early decision on proposals to reorganise schools in Ealing, where parents, teachers and children will be greatly affected by those decisions?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend Government time for that matter. However, he is aware that he can seek to find time to raise it in the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 291, which has been signed by 124 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House?
[That this House regrets the Government's failure to deal with the imminent threat of wholesale breaches of the law on Sunday trading; expresses concern that Ministers appear to be running away from their responsibility to uphold the law as soon as one or more large commercial organisations express their intention to ignore the law; greatly regrets the way that this situation puts pressure on responsible and law-abiding retailers to open on Sundays simply to protect their market share; further regrets the damage that is likely to be done to small shops and family businesses as a consequence; considers that sensible progress to modernising the law should be made on the basis of the REST proposals put forward by Keep Sunday Special; and calls on the Government actively to pursue the regulation of Sunday trading in a way which deals fairly with employees, their families and with community and commercial interests.]
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of yesterday's decision by the House, by 224 votes to 4, to do something about the shambles about the operation of the Shops Act 1950. Surely some time should be given next week so that we can debate this issue, especially when, today, in answer to Question 4, the Minister of State, Home Office told the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that it would be a couple of months before we had the report from the law courts in Europe. That does not answer the burning problem of law-breaking on a Sunday, especially when the House has not been afforded the opportunity even to debate the matter in full so that a consensus of hon. Members can be taken. The Leader of the House should make time next week for this urgent matter to be discussed.

Mr. MacGregor: But the Government have already made clear their position on this matter. We had a full statement on the case that is now in the House of Lords and on the general discussion in relation to the reform of Sunday trading. The hon. Gentleman has been here sufficiently long to know that yesterday's decision by the


House was simply to give leave to bring in a Bill. The House did not take a decision on the Bill or express a view on it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are many views in the House about exactly what any reform of Sunday trading should involve. It is unlikely that the House will be able to consider a Bill on this matter in the remainder of this Session, given the amount of business that we have to do.

Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Secretary King.

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot take a point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—until after the statement. I must apply the same rules to those on the Front Benches as to those on the Back Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Tracey?"] This is taking up time, but if hon. Members are alleging that I took a point of order from the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), I did so because the Chair has to hear the point of order if it is alleged that something unparliamentary happened during the course of Question Time. Nothing had happened.

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not taking it. The shadow Leader of the House cannot ask me to hear a point of order from the Front Bench when I am not prepared to hear them from those on the Back Benches.

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am sorry but I am not taking it until after the statement.

Dr. Cunningham: It arose out of business questions.

Mr. Speaker: It may have done.

Type 23 Frigates

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on a further order for type 23 frigates.
The type 23 frigate will form the backbone of the Royal Navy anti-submarine surface force in the future and is, in addition, a highly capable all-round warship. Four are already in service and six more are under construction. In June we invited tenders for up to three more frigates. The benefit of our competitive tendering policy was clearly shown in the extremely keen prices offered, which are significantly lower in real terms than previous ships. The benefits of privatisation of the yards and the greatly improved productivity now ensure better value for money for our own defence expenditure and help the yards themselves to compete once again overseas, as the opportunities with Malaysia and Oman have shown.
Before I turn to the outcome of the competition, I remind the House that the contract with the shipbuilder is for less than half the total estimated cost of the frigates. The larger part is made up by the host of specialised equipments that such a frigate contains. For some of those, contracts have yet to be awarded. But some are already known; for instance, the ships' 4.5 in gun will be ordered from VSEL—Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited—in Barrow, the machinery control equipment from Vosper Thornycroft in Porchester, the vertical launch Sea Wolf missiles from British Aerospace in Bristol. The two Spey gas turbine engines for each ship will be ordered from Rolls-Royce at Coventry, main gearing from GEC, Rugby and diesel generators from Paxman Diesels at Colchester. The shipbuilder will itself also have many sub-contractors. Hundreds of firms across the United Kingdom, large and small, will benefit from this order over the next few years, and its value will approach about £400 million.
On the results of the competition, I can tell the House that the tenders produced a winner by a very clear margin. We have accordingly decided to place a fixed-price contract for three type 23 frigates with Yarrow Shipbuilders on the Clyde. The construction of the first ship will start in the second half of this year. These ships will join the Duke class and will be named HMS Somerset, HMS Grafton and HMS Sutherland.
This is very good news for Glasgow, for Scotland as a whole, and for all the companies involved throughout the country. I recognise that it is, equally, a disappointment for the other yards which had tendered for the work, and for the people in those areas. However, this type 23 order is but one part of a substantial on-going programme of vessels for the Royal Navy. This will include a new anti-air warfare frigate, a second batch of Trafalgar class submarines and other significant vessels to ensure that we maintain a modern and effective navy in the future.
This order brings to 13 the number of type 23 frigates ordered since 1984, and the number of vessels ordered for the Royal Navy since 1979 to 71. It is yet more evidence that the Government are committed to ensuring the capability of the Royal Navy's fleet and to the wider aim of ensuring that our forces of the future have the modern equipment that they need.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for his welcome statement, made with great promptness, given the time scale. I offer my congratulations to the workers and management of Yarrow, who have picked themselves up after the bitter disappointment of losing the last order, despite having built the first of class and many of the subsequent ships.
Can the Secretary of State give the fabrication start date, an important issue for the progress of work for the yard and for the timetabling of entry into service? What does the right hon. Gentleman consider to be the size of the fleet? It has been postulated at "around 40". Perhaps he is now in a position to be more precise. When will the tendering process be opened for the craft to which he referred in his statement? That must be of great concern to the yards which were not successful in the tendering process, whose problems will become similar to those that confronted Yarrow until this afternoon. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the next tranche of type 23 orders, to which he did not refer in his statement, to be in the pipeline and when can we expect the next round of tendering to start for those?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. He recognises this for what it is—solid confirmation of the Government's determination to invest in the defence of our country. I will not go further than to say "around 40", but we certainly intend to implement the programme that we set out in "Options for Change". I can confirm that other ships are under way. We have a project definition of the landing platform dock. At present, other matters are proceeding, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman—I am grateful to him for seeking clarification—that in respect of a further order for type 23s, I expect that to be at a broadly similar interval comparing this with the previous order that was placed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again what I said before business questions, namely, that there is heavy pressure on the next two debates. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.30, after which we shall have to move on to the debate.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the machinery control order is to be placed with that fine company, Vosper Thornycroft, will be very good news in south Hampshire? Does he further agree that the fact that 71 vessels have been ordered by the Ministry of Defence since 1979 confirms what my hon. Friends and I have always believed—that under the present Government the Royal Navy will continue to play an important role and provide a fine career in the foreseeable future?

Mr. King: I certainly confirm my hon. Friend's comments about the quality of the work at Vosper Thornycroft, which is the basis of its competitiveness and why it has achieved the order placed directly by my Department. It confirms our commitment to a substantial number of ships in the future. Hon. Members could easily have been misled by referring to a previous Hansard which shows that a substantial number of ships are on order but fails to reflect the Government's commitment to naval shipbuilding. An unfortunate misprint in Hansard says that the value of the ships on order is £4.6 million whereas the correct answer should have been £4.6 billion.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It would be churlish to do anything other than welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's announcement, and I willingly do so. He will appreciate that there will be not only a sense of relief at Yarrow, but a great sense of pride that the company has been entrusted with that order. The Secretary of State mentioned in his statement the disappointment that others might feel. When will he be in a position to make a firm announcement about the placing of an order for the fourth Trident submarine?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. My announcement is a tribute to the shipyard's competitiveness and productivity. I remember walking round that shipyard some 30 years ago. A transformation has taken place in the productivity of British shipbuilding because of privatisation, because there was no bottomless pit to which shipyards could turn, and because of the sheer reality that none of those yards would exist unless there had been a quantum change in working practices. The competitive procurement policy of the Ministry of Defence has been good news not only for the Ministry and the taxpayer but for the yards. A discussion is currently taking place on the contract for the fourth Trident boat. We intend to proceed and shall resolve the contract at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Neville Trotter: It is clearly in the interests of the Royal Navy and of the taxpayer that there should be competitive tendering to obtain the lowest price. Will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that that order was decided solely on price? Would the cost have been significantly higher if the order had been divided? Finally, is it still the Government's intention to proceed with ordering a large helicopter carrier, known as an aviation support ship? Swan Hunter's experience of shipbuilding for the navy makes it well placed to win a contract.

Mr. King: I can confirm my hon. Friend's first point. Nobody has fought harder than he for the interests of the shipyards of the Tyne and for Swan Hunter. I know that today's announcement will be a disappointment for them, and that those on the Tyne recognise that the response to all that they asked for previously was fair play. Yarrow was a clear winner in the competition. I also confirm that a clear benefit is that of batch ordering. We did not merely see three ships come sailing by: ordering in threes has shown significant benefits and economies. Furthermore, we intend to invite tenders for the building of an aviation support ship shortly. That is of great interest to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members, and Swan Hunter will clearly be one of the real contenders for that.

Mr. George Galloway: As Yarrow is the flagship in my constituency and the biggest private employer in the whole of Glasgow, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept my sense of relief and—yes—gratitude that the Ministry has made that decision today. I am also grateful for the Secretary of State's confirmation that the order was won on merit and is a testament to the ability and dedication of the management and work force at Yarrow Shipbuilders. When the Secretary of State worked in Glasgow in a previous life, he grew to know the value of the stamp, "Clyde-built". Today's order confirms that.


When is the work likely to start? Notwithstanding the good news, many hundreds of the workers at Yarrow Shipbuilders have already gone down the road and it would be helpful if we could proceed quickly.
I have just one quibble: could we not consider naming the ships HMS Stewart, Lang and Forsyth in memory of three Ministers who, notwithstanding that good news, are likely not to be in office much longer?

Mr. King: I am appalled at the flippant way in which the hon. Member addresses the serious matter of the continuing equipment of the Royal Navy. I can confirm, however, that the company would not have won this order except as a private sector yard which will have to incur the costs if it makes losses. Such losses will be borne, not by the Government, but by the company. I do not think that it is in any way insulting to say that the epithet, "Clyde-built", which was a badge of quality in the last century, was getting somewhat tarnished during the post-war years. The efforts of the management and the work force now in the shipyards on the Clyde and in Yarrow's have done a great deal to restore that badge of quality, which was in danger of slipping away.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is wonderful news for Glasgow and for Scotland and a great tribute to the work force and management, some of whom were in the House this week to meet an all-party group? As we have had some rather rough news in the past few weeks, it is a real shot in the arm and the country will be grateful for the announcement.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is right to recognise the importance of the announcement. He is right also to say that the value is not just for Yarrow. Hundreds of subcontractors, in Scotland as in other parts of the country, will benefit from this announcement. My hon. Friend will also know the value of the more competitive and effective approach of the yard. It is currently in the final stages of negotiations for a very important order from Malaysia which, had it not been the competitive and effective yard that it now is, it would have had no chance of getting.

Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State said that he was mindful of the atmosphere in yards which had competed and failed. Will he share with the House his thoughts about the atmosphere that he thinks will now prevail in Cammell Laird, which finds itself unable to compete for naval orders? Is he aware that, under British Shipbuilders, Laird's was classified as a naval yard, and other yards not so classified were given intervention funding? Laird's now has to go into battle without any chance of getting either naval orders or intervention funds. Does the Secretary of State believe that the action of the board of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. in disqualifying us from competing for this work is fair to Cammell Laird? What does he think that that does for the Government's competition policy?

Mr. King: I understand very well the point that the hon. Member raises, having worn another hat previously when a major shipyard was one of my biggest concerns. The question whether one had a naval involvement or access to the intervention fund was very critical indeed. That yard, privatised and sold to a new owner and with access to the intervention fund, now has a substantial number of new

orders. I would rather not answer across the Floor of the House the serious point that the hon. Member has raised, but I will certainly look into it and come back to him.

Mr. Cecil Franks: While the Secretary of State's announcement is good news for Yarrow and the Clyde, it is none the less a disappointment for the other three shipyards that submitted tenders, not least VSEL in Barrow, although the order for the 4.5 inch gun would be welcome.
The Secretary of State referred to Trident. To pursue the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the Secretary of State will be aware that the long lead orders for the four Trident submarines were placed some time ago and that construction is quite well advanced. Is he able to elaborate on the answer that he gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East? Can he say how evaluation of the tender is progressing? I understand that progress is good. Can he give some sort of time scale, given good will on both sides, and when the order may be expected to be placed?

Mr. King: I obviously understand the disappointment. There is no question but that VSEL strived genuinely to compete for the order, and put in an effective bid. Unfortunately, from the company's point of view, it was not so competitive as that from Yarrow, but it was certainly a very responsible offer. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the outstandingly successful 4.5 inch gun produced by VSEL is a source of further valuable orders for it.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the construction of the 08, the fourth boat, is currently under way and authorities have been given for the long lead items. The contract is being evaluated. The House will understand that, although we prefer these matters to be resolved by competitive tendering, in this case we are effectively talking about a single supplier, so it is vital to get the contract right. That is why we must ensure that the contract is properly dealt with—otherwise, the Public Accounts Committee, among other bodies, will have a lot to say. We must deal with the matter carefully. I am anxious that the question should be resolved as soon as possible. Although I cannot give a date, we intend to proceed just as soon as we can resolve the question of the contract.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As a Glasgow Member, I add my own expression of delight and relief, and I congratulate the Yarrow management and work force. They certainly deserve their success. Anyone who has spoken to them recently knows of the problems with which they have had to cope. May I add one small point? I was surprised to hear the proposed names for the three frigates. As the memory of the clearances lingers in Scotland, I suggest that the Duke of Sutherland is perhaps not the most popular name that could have been chosen.

Mr. King: Given that the announcement is outstandingly good news for the hon. Lady and her constituents, it is unfortunate that she should wish to introduce a divisive note.

Mr. James Hill: I congratulate Yarrow on its good fortune in securing a contract for three ships at once, but I must express some dismay on behalf of Vosper Thornycroft, Southampton, which has built many naval ships in the past.
I have a query about the fibreglass minesweepers. I understand that my right hon. Friend has just been to Oman, so perhaps he can give the House some information. Vosper Thornycroft, Southampton, is anxiously waiting for confirmation of the order from the Sheik of Oman for a fleet of minesweepers.

Mr. King: I confirm that I returned from the Gulf late last night. I spent some time in discussion in Oman, not about the minesweepers but about the much more valuable corvette order that the Omanis are seeking to place, and I was given very satisfactory assurances by His Majesty the Sultan about those orders. Details remain to be resolved and I hope that it will be possible to resolve them quickly.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: When the Secretary of State listed the areas that would benefit from today's announcement, he made no mention of Tyneside. He has now ordered 13 type 23 frigates, four of which either were or are under construction at Swan Hunter on Tyneside. I understand that type 23 frigates are grouped in fours around the fleet auxiliaries. AOR1 is the first auxiliary oil replenishment vessel and AOR2 is currently being constructed on Tyneside. As the Secretary of State has now ordered 13 type 23 frigates and has only two AOR vessels, does he not need to order another AOR vessel? When will he make an announcement about AOR3?

Mr. King: I do not have any comment to make on that ship at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) about the aviation support ship, for which Swan's is obviously one of the real contenders. That could be an important ship for Swan's. I took the trouble to look at what the hon. Gentleman said last time, when Swan's was successful. He said magnanimously, "All that we ever ask for is fair play." I can assure him that fair play is what he has got in this case. I am sorry that he is disappointed that the order did not go to Swan's, but I can assure him that there was fair play and it has gone to Yarrow.

Mr. John Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the order and the announcement will be widely welcomed, particularly by the work force and managment of GEC, Rugby? It is good news for jobs and it is good news for the town. Can my right hon. Friend say what is the global worth of the contract, and does he agree that it represents a vote of confidence in British engineering?

Mr. King: I can confirm that. This statement differs from previous statements in that it spells out the main contractors. There is a tendency for people to approach this matter as though it were one entirely for the shipyard concerned. In fact, the larger part of the value of the contract is not in the hull itself but in the components, a significant proportion of which will be provided by GEC in Rugby. Obviously, for commercial reasons, I cannot disclose individual contract values. However, I can confirm that the overall value of the ships with equipment that I have announced today approaches £400 million.

Mr. Peter Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his Department takes an adequate

interest in the subcontracts? Is he aware that the chain and cable industry in this country is widely accepted as being the best in the world in terms of both technology and workmanship? Will he ensure that it is not unfairly excluded as a result of the foreign dumping of inferior chain?

Mr. King: I am interested to hear that, and I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will be aware that HMS Norfolk—the first of the Duke class—has been accepted into the fleet and has been completing work-up at Portland. Past colleagues of mine who are still serving in the Royal Navy tell me that she is an outstanding success and a tribute to British shipbuilding. Indeed, she is a foretaste of what we shall be getting in these other ships. Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement about vertically launched Sea Wolf will be most welcome to British Aerospace in Bristol? I know that in this regard my feeling will be echoed by my hon. Friends with responsibility for Bristol constituencies. It is regrettable that, yet again, the Labour Member for Bristol has not bothered to turn up.

Mr. King: I did notice the absence. I know that my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, understands the importance to Bristol and to British Aerospace of this decision and this order. Bearing in mind his experience and his information, I am pleased to hear his tribute to the quality of HMS Norfolk—as it happens, the first of class, built at Yarrow. The news that my hon. Friend has given the House is encouraging.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State accept that this news is very welcome indeed? It is a tribute not only to the management at Yarrow but to the workers, who have spent a long time removing ill-considered demarcation practices—and it is as a shipbuilder that I say that. Will the Secretary of State concede that one of the things that this will enable Yarrow to do is to keep its essential design capability, illustrated by the fact that it produced the first of class? Will he continue to allow it flexibility in respect of other markets?

Mr. King: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have to make the point that it will not be possible to keep any design capability, any warship-building capability or any manufacturing capability for the sort of defence components that we need unless the Government are prepared to fund the defence programme at a sensible level. While I am far too gentle and decent a person to criticise any Opposition Member who has joined in the expressions of appreciation of this action, I have to say, in the kindest possible way, that if the defence policies to which the Opposition subscribe—I include all the Opposition parties—were implemented, we should not be ordering a rowing boat, let alone three frigates.

Mr. David Martin: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's statement because it demonstrates the Government's commitment to a better equipped fleet for the future, even though the fleet manpower is contracting, and because jobs will be provided in the Portsmouth travel-to-work area. Many people wish to write down the opportunities which exist, but under the present Government there is a future for many of the defence-related industries in my area.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, I know, appreciates the situation very well. We have announced changes, including some reductions in numbers. It is true that the new type 23s, because of their greater capability and efficiency, will operate with smaller crews. They show very clearly that the Government are ensuring that, while we may reduce the personnel numbers in our armed forces, we are increasing the relative proportion of funds spent on their equipment to ensure that in the future they have the equipment that they need to perform the tasks that we set them.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I join the whole House in paying tribute to the work force and management at Yarrow on winning this vital order against such stiff competition. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the competition was won on price? And can he reveal whether the tendering process says anything about the level of profits being made by VSEL in the manufacturing and construction of Trident submarines?

Mr. King: No, I cannot comment on that, but it is relevant to the contract negotiations for Trident 08—we must protect the public Exchequer precisely from the problem of a monopoly single buyer.
I can certainly confirm that the contract was placed on merit; it was won by a clear margin in a competitive tender.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is good news for the Ansty Rolls-Royce plant in my constituency which manufactures Spey engines? This is welcome news for the employees and management of that company. Will he also accept that his demonstration of confidence in the plant's high quality power unit is most important for the company when it seeks orders abroad?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly true that the Spey engines have proved an outstanding success. The Royal Navy has great confidence in them and they were chosen for their quality, flexibility and efficiency. They have stood the Royal Navy in good stead. It is because of our defence programme's ability to maintain an effective ordering programme that we can also attract interest among overseas countries. What we invest in is always of great interest to such countries. They know that if an item has the Royal Navy's endorsement it is bound to be of good quality.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will certainly look with compassion in days to come on the three hon. Members whom I have not been able to call on the statement, but we have a busy day ahead of us.

Points of Order

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the House heard the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) make wholly untrue allegations about Labour's policies with respect to the savings and income from savings of pensioners. We have come to expect the premeditated dishonesty of Conservative Central Office to be reprinted in the Daily Mail, but we do

not intend to allow it to go unchallenged in the columns of Hansard. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his allegation.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be expected to monitor these statements. I am not a member of the Conservative party, so I do not receive this literature.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Shortly before yesterday's debate on the economy you told the House that in your opinion the general election campaign started when we came back from the Christmas recess. Of course, in these difficult circumstances you seek to keep order, but I ask you to reflect on one problem and to see what you can do about it. I refer to what I regard as the Labour party's organised disruption of yesterday's debate.
The example that I wish to mention is drawn not only from the delayed start of the debate but from the organised barracking of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury orchestrated from the Back Benches by a Labour Whip. So now we know that a member of the Labour party Whips Office was organising the disruption.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member, and others, do not receive letters about this from the general public, but I do. When I have to answer them I have some difficulty defending Members of the House, for whom I have a high regard and affection, if they behave badly, but such bad behaviour does not always come from the same side of the House.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This all takes up a lot of time; we are under great pressure today.

Mr. Ewing: I am delighted to learn that you are a floating voter, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Labour party, I invite you to join the vast majority of people in this country at the next election and to vote Labour.

Mr. Derek Conway: On a slightly more serious point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were right to point out that from now until polling day, whenever it may be, will be somewhat tortuous not just for the watching public but for Members who sit in this Chamber. You will no doubt be concerned for the reputation of this House. As we may have to wait even until the summer, tempers may get a little tetchy, as last night's closing session proved. Would it be worth your while to consider sending for the chairman not only of the 1922 committee but also of the parliamentary Labour party so that the leaders of the respective parties in Parliament can discuss with you the conduct last night? The Chief Secretary was undoubtedly unable to explain his case fully because of the obviously organised baiting. That does not augur well for the reputation of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is necessary for me to send for the chairmen of Back-Bench committees. The behaviour of the House is in the hands of hon. Members themselves. They surely do not need to be told by the chairmen of the respective parliamentary committees what they should and should not do. I ask the hon. Member to reflect on what he has said.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: Yes?

Mr. Winnick: You said that you receive letters of complaint from the general public. May I help you by suggesting that if you could persuade the Prime Minister to fix the election date now there would be no need for this pre-election period—if the Prime Minister would stop shilly-shallying because he is afraid of going to the country.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a very brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for being absent from the Chamber for the statement. I do not know why my hon. Friend is not here today, but I know that she is a very hard-working, committed hon. Member. For whatever reason, she is not here; I am sure that she is doing something important.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that in this period of electioneering excitement we can keep off the personalities and concentrate on the policies.
In relation to what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said about the letters that I receive, very few of them to date, particularly since we have been televised, have been about bad behaviour in the House—rather the reverse—and I wish it to remain that way.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Because the hon. Member was not called earlier, I will allow the point of order.

Dr. Godman: With unfailing respect, may I ask why I was not called on the Yarrow statement? I have not spoken in this place for a considerable period of time.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I should explain to the hon. Member why he was not called. I have to have a balance of Glasgow Members and other hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Clyde Members."]—well, Clydeside Members, then, against some other hon. Member who did not hear such good news as the hon. Member has had. I thought that because he had had such good news he might just like to keep it to himself today.

BILL PRESENTED

SOCIAL SECURITY (MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS)

Mr. Secretary Newton, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Miss Ann Widdecombe, presented a Bill to make provision for requiring, in certain cases where interest on a loan secured on land is payable by a person who is entitled, or whose partner, former partner or qualifying associate is entitled, to income support, the applicable amount in respect of which includes a sum in respect of that interest, that a part of the benefits to which any of those persons is entitled under the enactments relating to social security shall be paid directly to the lender and applied towards the discharge of the liability in respect of the interest; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Opposition Day

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Poverty

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Furthermore, a very large number of hon. Members are seeking to participate in the debate. It would be possible for me to call them all if they were to limit their speeches to 10 minutes. I have no authority to do that in a half-day debate, but perhaps hon. Members will bear it in mind. If I may say to those on the Front Benches too, half-hour speeches would help the whole House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that the ten million people today living on or below the income support level of less than £40 a week for an adult represent the greatest numbers in poverty in Britain since the war, and that the Government has as a deliberate policy over twelve years further impoverished the poorest one third of the nation to make the rich richer, calls on the Government to reverse its policies of increasing poverty and unemployment and to give priority to the growing millions excluded from the rights and opportunities of real citizenship by increasing pensions by £5 per week for a single pensioner and by £8 a week for a married couple, by re-instituting the pension link with earnings which the Government broke twelve years ago, and by restoring to families the losses in child benefit from three years of government freeze.
There could be no clearer indicator of the indifference
and contempt in which the Government hold those on the lowest incomes than the Government's exclusive concern with our tax proposals, without even a glimmer of a mention of those who will benefit from them. There could be no more revealing insight into the Government's priorities than their obsessive concentration on the 8.7 per cent. richest taxpayers whom the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies estimated would lose under our proposals while at the same time completely ignoring the 46 per cent. of the population who, the same institute calculated, would gain under our proposals.
We should not, however, be surprised. This is the Government who have stopped pensioners getting an annual increase in line with Community living standards, a deliberate act of policy in 1980, which cumulatively so far—according to a parliamentary answer to me on 25 November last—has removed from pensioners £31.8 billion of improved pensions which they would otherwise have had.
The Government have cut unemployment benefit 11 times since 1979, making a cumulative "saving"—if I may use that word—at the expense of the unemployed, of £5 billion to £6 billion over the past decade. They have repeatedly cut benefits for the disabled by abolishing industrial injury benefit, by abolishing disablement benefit for seven out of eight disabled people and by abolishing the reduced earnings allowance for disabled people who cannot earn a full wage. They have frozen child benefit for three years so that mothers and families are nearly £1 billion worse off than they would otherwise have been.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: About 18 months ago, the hon. Gentleman said that he


had irrefutable evidence that the Government intended to abolish child benefit. After three increases, where is his evidence? Has he lost it, or did he make it up?

Mr. Meacher: I did not say that I had irrefutable evidence. I certainly regarded the continuance of child benefit as very uncertain, and I still regard it as uncertain. If by some mischance the Government are returned for a fourth term, I should be surprised if child benefit survives to the end of their term.
With a record like that, no wonder Ministers want to keep the spotlight on the tax and national insurance costs of our proposals and away from the half of the nation who will gain. For that half of the nation, the Government have been the meanest, the most divisive and the most vindictive Government in modern times. It is all too clear why there has been such an unremitting broadside from Ministers against our tax and national insurance proposals. It is partly because they are desperate to divert attention from the recession—which they created, from which they cannot escape and which will lose them the election—and partly because they are desperate to conceal the enormity of what they have done in wilfully impoverishing the poorer half of the nation.
By contrast, I make it clear that Labour believes it is right and just and should be the first priority for pensioners to get an increase of £5 a week for a single pensioner and £8 a week for a married couple, given the mean and miserable way in which they have been treated over the past decade. We shall make no corresponding deductions from income support, housing benefit or poll tax benefit, which means that the poorest pensioners will gain the full £5 and £8 a week.
It is also right and just that mothers and children should be compensated for three years of Tory freeze by getting an increase in child benefit of more than £2 a week for second and subsequent children. We have been honest in making it clear that the extra cost of that will be confined to the richest 10 per cent. of taxpayers. It is fair that those on £70,000 a year should contribute. According to a parliamentary answer on 6 March last year, those people have gained an extra £700 a week in real terms from tax cuts in successive Budgets since 1979.
It is also fair that those on £60,000 a year who have gained an extra £192, those on £50,000 a year—a group which includes several Ministers—who have gained an extra £131 a week and those on £40,000 who have gained an extra £77 a week should also contribute. A small contribution should also be made by those on £30,000 a year who have gained an extra £45 a week. I make it clear that no contribution will be sought from anyone earning less than £21,000 a year, or £405 a week. We intend to take back a small fraction of the large windfall tax gains received by the 10 per cent. richest taxpayers over the past decade so that we may restore to nearly half the population a modest part of the cuts imposed by the Government on all the poorest groups in the country. We think that that is fair and we believe that the country will think it fair.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): How can the hon. Gentleman explain the guarantee that he gave in the last few sentences, bearing in mind that national insurance contributions are levied weekly, not annually, and would be levied on anyone

whose income, because of bonuses, overtime, commission and so on in any one week, went above the rate representing the annual level?

Mr. Meacher: That issue has been raised during the past couple of weeks. It ill-behoves the Government to raise the issue of a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred, people who on one or two weeks of the year suddenly get a substantial increase in pay, given that the Government have doubled VAT even though they said they would never do that.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's answer is that what he has said is not a guarantee.

Mr. Meacher: It is a guarantee that all those whose normal pay is at that level will not have to pay more. To speak about tiny discrepancies is an insult to the people when the Government have increased taxation from 34 to 37 per cent. for the average person.
I have spelt out our position and shall now look briefly at that of the Government. By breaking the pension link with earnings, the Secretary of State for Social Security and his predecessors have made the single pensioner about £14 a week worse off and the married couple £23 a week worse off than they would have been under the policies that existed in 1979. Having done that to the pensioners, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to continue to reduce even further their share of average living standards year by year.
It is not that the Secretary of State and the Government do not have a choice. There is persistent talk of 1p off income tax in the Budget, or perhaps an increase in personal allowances by double the rate of inflation. Clearly, there is leeway of about £2 billion in the Budget. That is enough to increase the pension for a single person by about £3.50 a week and for a married couple by about £5.50 a week, together with all the linked benefits. Why is not the right hon. Gentleman demanding that his colleagues should help the pensioners for once? Why is he such a pushover when it comes to defending the 17 million people who depend on benefits? The Secretary of State is silent. We have grown used to his silences, which sometimes last for months on end. They speak volumes. Even after slapping pensioners round the face year after year throughout the past decade, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, even at this time, prefer tax cuts for their friends in the upper income groups rather than the tiniest measure of justice for pensioners.

Mr. Simon Burns: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a relevant comment.

Mr. Burns: Between the hon. Gentleman's flights of hyperbole, which make him sound more and more like a cold war warrior when the cold war has ended, will he remind the House that between 1979 and 1988 pensioners' incomes rose by 33 per cent. in real terms above inflation?

Mr. Meacher: I shall be glad to put it on record, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take note of it, that the 2 million poorest pensioners, who do not have any other income, have had an increase in pension in real terms since 1979 of between 0 per cent. and 2 per cent. Under the last Labour Government, who were in office for five years, the increase was 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman referred to a 33 per cent. increase. There is one major reason for that


—the state-earnings related pension scheme which Labour introduced. In 1979 it was worth about 50p a week. For the average pensioner retiring this year on average earnings it is worth £40.80 per week. Pensioners have done better because of Labour's action on pensions, which the Secretary of State's predecessor tried to abolish.
What is the Prime Minister's position? He likes to proclaim the classless society—I think that he describes it as a nation at ease with itself—yet he has produced the most class-divided society since the war, a nation more riven by depression, anxiety and fear than at any time for a decade. It gives me no pride to say that for the first time since the war more than 10 million people, or more than one in six of the population, are living at or below the income support level. That is more even than when unemployment was last at its peak in 1986.
While the Prime Minister in his so-called classless society always travels first class, the 10 million at the bottom are deprived even—if I may coin a phrase—of the "cheap and cheerful" class. Not only are there more of them than before, but the poverty level standard on which they are forced to live is at a record low. It is less than £40 a week for an adult over 25. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who gets more than £1,000 a week, should try living on £40 for a week. If Ministers had to experience that in practice, it would not stay at that level for long.
Faced with those figures by David Frost last Sunday, what was the Prime Minister's response? It was to wriggle and to fiddle. He said:
Now we have raised those income support levels far above the amount that one would need to raise them simply to keep pace with inflation, so in essence we have brought into the statistics people who otherwise would have been beyond those statistics. So there is an artificiality in the figures.
I have news for the Prime Minister. The only artificiality in the official figures is that they are lower than the reality because every year for the last eight years the Government have cut income support and supplementary benefit in relation to average earnings.
Since 1979, the Government have cut the relative value of the benefits by a quarter. That really matters when a person receives less than £40 a week. Because those on income support have now been deprived of single payments and have to pay 100 per cent. water rates and 20 per cent. poll tax, income support has not even kept up with inflation. If the Prime Minister would put only half the ingenuity that he devotes to misrepresenting the truth into dealing with the problem, we might make progress in reducing the poverty which he has played such a big part in creating.
The Prime Minister has a record as long as one's arm. He tells us about his humble origins about as often as the Chancellor tells us that the recession is ending. But that did not stop him—when he had the power as a Minister at the Department of Social Security—cutting in half the relief on mortgage interest payments for the first 16 weeks for newly unemployed, or virtually abolishing disability benefit, sharply cutting the number of free school meals, or punitively extending the unemployment benefit disqualification rules from 16 to 26 weeks and setting up the hated social fund; I might add to that his refusal now of 75 per cent. of the applications made under it.
This is the same man who in 1988, together with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, chopped £1 billion

off the benefits for people on £40 a week, at the same time as the Chancellor handed £2 billion in tax cuts to higher rate taxpayers. Surely there cannot be a clearer demonstration of Tory contempt for those struggling on the lowest incomes.
Perhaps, if the Prime Minister were here, he would say that as a junior Minister he was acting under orders. I understand that point. In that case, why has he done nothing, since becoming Prime Minister, to reverse the harsh legislation for which he was responsible? Why has he not even revoked the iniquitous 16-week mortgage interest disqualification rule which he personally introduced in the House in December 1986 and which, of course, is the root cause of thousands of repossessions?

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Meacher: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who before the debate started was making a bogus point of order about disrupting proceedings, speaks to some of those whose houses have been repossessed about the effect that that has had on them.
Why has the Prime Minister left in place a Chancellor who has shown his personal contempt for the poor by saying that unemployment is a price well worth paying? Why has he done nothing to halt the human tide of despair among the 1 million people forced on to income support—not when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister, but since he became Prime Minister? The Prime Minister inherited a wilderness and he has simply presided over its getting worse. He spends more time running away from elections than facing up to fundamental issues.
Our social security system is probably the worst in the EC, with the possible exception of those in Greece, Spain and Portugal. It is getting steadily worse by the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is a fact. If hon. Members looked at the figures of comparative benefit, they would understand the point which I am making.
British pensions, British child benefit and British disability benefits are all lower, and in many cases substantially lower, than those of all our main competitors. We have a Secretary of State for Social Security who is distinguished only by his invisibility, and who has done nothing to arrest the steady disintegration of the benefits system, the growing demoralisation of his staff in social security offices and the major dissatisfaction and anger of so many clients.
At least I was assured that the right hon. Gentleman still existed when, a week ago, he issued a press release attacking the Labour party over its national insurance plans. The only problem was that he contradicted the figures which he had given only a month ago by exaggerating them by no less than 50 per cent. Perhaps he should return to his hibernation.
We have a Government where the last resort of the scoundrel is to lie.

Mr. Arbuthnot: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I am not giving way again. Other hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
We have a Government who are making wild and unthruthful allegations against us about tax as they have no other resort left. Let us consider briefly their record on


tax. Under the Tories, taxation has gone up from 34 per cent. to 37 per cent. Theirs is not a tax-cutting party but a tax-raising party. The Government say that they will cut income tax and increase public expenditure. That means that they will have to put up VAT which, as the latest edition of "Social Trends" out yesterday shows, hits poorer families much harder than richer families. Of course, the Tories say that they have no plans to increase VAT. They said that in 1978 and in 1987. On both occasions, they promptly increased it directly after the elections. We cannot trust the Tories on VAT. It was the Tories who introduced VAT; it was the Tories who doubled it. Labour cut it from 10 per cent. to 8 per cent.in 1974.
The Labour party believes in fair taxation, justice and the right of participation for all our citizens, including the poorest. Because the Tories have shown by their record that they manifestly believe in neither, the issue which we are debating today will play a major part in removing them soon from power.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'warmly endorses the Government's policies for focusing considerable extra help on the most vulnerable in society; welcomes the further real increases in benefits shortly to take place for many older less well off pensioners and hundreds of thousands of disabled people; notes the Social Security Select Committee's conclusion that real disposable incomes grew by 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988 with increases in real income being seen at all levels of the income scale; believes that policies which provide more choice and greater opportunities are the best way of helping people to create a better life for themselves and their families; and recognises that, if implemented, Her Majesty's Opposition's confused tax and spending plans would impoverish the whole nation, increase unemployment and destroy opportunities.'.
In the light of one or two observations that the hon.
Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I shall begin with an observation that I had not intended to make: that I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not make the remark about orders that the hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested. What I do know is that, when challenged on his record when he was a Social Security Minister, the hon. Gentleman was heard to mutter that of course he was a junior Minister and had to do what he was told.

Mr. Meacher: Since the right hon. Gentleman has made that allegation, I totally and absolutely refute it and ask
him to provide the evidence, or else to withdraw it.

Mr. Newton: I heard the hon. Gentleman mutter that when I made the point across the Dispatch Box in the last debate that we had on this subject. If the hon. Gentleman assures me that my recollection or my hearing was wrong, then of course I accept that unequivocally. I simply say that he had no business to make that suggestion about the Prime Minister. I remind him that he was a Minister in the old Department of Health and Social Security when the Christmas bonus was not paid for two years running—so much for his concern for the pensioners—and when Labour failed to carry out its own obligation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. There is too much body language.

Mr. Newton: —in respect of the uprating of benefits. The hon. Gentleman's approach to these matters can best be illustrated by looking at a number of his recent texts. When I saw the figure of 10 million people living in poverty in the motion that he tabled, I found that I could not reconcile it with a number of other figures that the hon. Gentleman had used. I did some research and found that in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change: A new Agenda for Britain" of June 1989 we were told that the numbers living in poverty had grown from 11 million to over 15 million. Later, in September 1991, we were told that over 11 people were living in poverty. When the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Prime Minister in November 1991 the figure had come down to just over 9.5 million. In a press release that he issued on 17 December, less than a month later, the figure rose again to nearly 15 million. Today it has come down to 10 million.
It is tempting for me to draw from that wild variation the conclusion that, on Labour's own figures, the Government have reduced poverty by a third in a month. I shall refrain from doing so, however, and will simply wonder—no doubt in common with several of his right hon. and hon. Friends—just what it is that the hon. Gentleman thinks he is doing.

Mr. Meacher: If one takes account of the extra passported benefits associated with income support, one comes to a substantially higher figure than if one simply counts the heads of household claiming income support. If one takes into account only heads of household, which is what I did, the number stands at over 8.3 million. If one then takes into account what the National Audit Office said in its House of Commons paper 451—that 1.8 million who are living below the threshold are not claiming income support—one finds that the figure comes to just over 10 million. That is a shocking figure. It is the highest figure that we have ever had.

Mr. Newton: It is lower than the figure that the document I first quoted gave for 1979, which was 11 million. The hon. Gentleman appears to use whatever figures he thinks will have most impact in whatever press release he decides to issue in a particular week. Only one thing is absolutely clear: that, whatever else these figures do, they do not provide a sensible measure of poverty. They are constructed, apparently, in two different ways, both of which lead the hon. Gentleman, in the conclusions that he then seeks to draw, into manifest and palpable absurdity.
The first of these methods, upon which the hon. Gentleman touched earlier, is to take as the number in poverty the number of people at or below the income support rate and, as he said, sometimes to add in those who are a little above it. I leave aside the fact that the last Labour Government—I believe at the time when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister—declined to accept that sort of definition of a poverty line, just as much as the present Government have declined to accept it. I would simply make the point that, according to this "Alice in Wonderland" approach to measuring poverty, every real increase in the income support rates, which by definition makes people better off, produces in the hon. Gentleman's world an increase in the amount of poverty.
In April, when the 7 per cent. rise in income support generally and the further real increase in the higher pensioners' premium will give new income support


entitlement to about 500,000 people, most of them pensioners, making them better off, the hon. Gentleman will presumably be running round the country saying that poverty has increased from 10 million to 10.5 million. Incidentally, the converse is true—that a reduction in income support rates, which makes all those involved worse off, would show up in his kind of figuring as a reduction in poverty. It is utterly and totally ridiculous.
If anything, it gets worse. The second of the hon. Gentleman's methods for measuring what he calls poverty—I suspect that this is the real reason for some of the confused figures to which I referred a few moments ago—is to make reference to average incomes and then to say that everybody with less than half the average is to be designated a pauper.
The result, especially when average incomes are rising, as they have been under this Government, is once again to pretend that people who are getting better off are becoming poor, simply because the increase in their incomes is less than the average. Once again it is absurd, although here, too, there is an obvious converse: that we could make everyone in the country worse off, and, so long as we reduced the average by hitting the better-off hardest, a lot of people further down the scale would allegedly cease to be poor, even as their incomes fell.
One can see the relevance of that. This is a very attractive proposition for a Labour Government. At one and the same time, they could reduce the standard of living of everybody in the country and claim that they were reducing poverty. No doubt that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. There could be no clearer indication from the way in which the hon. Gentleman uses these figures that what he is really talking about—and, frankly, what he is really interested in—is not poverty but equality, an entirely separate matter.
So much for the hon. Gentleman's figures. I am interested in helping people to become better off. Therefore, I prefer to rest on the simple, clear and accurate conclusion of the Social Security Select Committee in its report on low-income statistics. I am happy to see that its Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is in the Chamber today. The report said:
Real disposable incomes grew by more than 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, with increases in real income being seen at all levels of the income scale.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman also quote the distribution figures for those at the bottom, those on average and those on higher incomes, which may be disguised by just putting across that average figure?

Mr. Newton: I implied that there have been changes in the distribution of income and the speed with which incomes have changed. That is not the same as the systematic attempt by the hon. Member for Oldham, West to pretend that large numbers of people have been getting better off, which the Select Committee rightly refuted.

Mr. Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman now say that he endorses the finding of the Select Committee that those who gained the smallest increase under this Government's stewardship were the poorest?

Mr. Newton: What I shall certainly endorse is that, in recent years, and certainly in the period since I have been

Secretary of State, we have steadily—uprating by uprating—steered additional resources to poorer pensions and to others whom we had identified, as a result of our research, as among those who were not doing as well as we should have wished.

Mr. Field: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I ask him that question again? He has quoted the Select Committee report. Does he endorse the whole of that report, which shows that the very poorest have gained the smallest increase under this Government?

Mr. Newton: I accept that there are variations in the way in which incomes have grown—[HON. MEMBERS:
"Answer."]—at different levels of the income distribution. I am going no further than that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because, apart from anything else, the hon. Member for Birkenhead, to whom I give credit for taking a genuine and serious interest in such matters—

Mr. Field: Don't we all?

Mr. Newton: He will recognise that, apart from anything else, the composition of different deciles and quartiles in those distribution figures is not necessarily the same at the end of the period as it was at the beginning. A whole range of extremely complicated factors are involved. If the hon. Gentleman will accept that, I shall move on.

Mr. Field: I accept that fully, but some of those in the lowest decile remained in the lowest decile throughout the Government's entire period in office. Will the right hon. Gentleman now come to the Dispatch Box to say that, under the stewardship of this Government, the poorest people in this country have had the smallest increase?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that there is any basis in the hon. Gentleman's report for that suggestion—[Interruption.] What I am saying—I think that he will accept this, because his own report makes the point—is that, at all levels of the income distribution, people have been getting better off during the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Meacher: The Select Committee has, of course, produced its own account, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of his written answers last July showed that, after housing costs, all those in the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution—the poorest tenth—were worse off by an average of 6 per cent., and that, according to the Government's own figures, those in the lowest percentile—more than half a million people—were worse off by more than 22 per cent.?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is taking us into an area which, as I think he knows, is the point at which the Select Committee and, perhaps even more importantly, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has accepted that the samples from which those figures are drawn do not allow that sort of conclusion to be drawn with the certainty with which the hon. Gentleman is pretending that it can.
In addition—this is the point that the hon. Gentleman so often misses when talking about benefit rates—calculations that consider people's incomes after housing costs are artificial when compared with the way in which almost everybody regards their income. Furthermore, when he talks about people living on £40 a week, he is entirely overlooking the fact that, if they are householders, their housing costs will be met 100 per cent. either through


rent or through the payment of their mortgage interest. When compared with the rest of the population, we are talking about significantly greater sums being represented by the benefit rates, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.
I prefer also to look at the clear practical evidence of the improvement that has been taking place for the groups that all hon. Members would regard as the people we particularly wish to help—the pensioners, disabled people and low-income families with children. An important point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—

Ms. Mildred Gordon: rose—

Mr. Newton: No, in deference to what Mr. Speaker said earlier, I shall not give way again, because I wish to make progress.
Pensioners' average net incomes grew by more than a third between 1979 and 1988. That income growth is certainly not less than was enjoyed by the rest of the population: indeed, it is probably marginally greater. Furthermore, it is not wholly or largely because of the state earnings-related pension scheme; it is due even more to the growth in savings incomes, which have more than doubled during the lifetime of this Government, but which fell in real terms under the last Labour Government. That increase in pensioners' average net incomes is also due to the increase in incomes from occupational pensions.

Mr. Arbuthnot: What does my right hon. Friend think would happen to the savings income if a massive tax were imposed on it, as has been suggested by the Labour party?

Mr. Newton: The most notable massive tax that Labour Governments have traditionally imposed on savings incomes is the one that caused the problems under the last Labour Government and led to a fall in the real value of savings incomes. It is the tax that is imposed by the rampant inflation with which Labour Governments have always been associated.
I turn now to disabled people. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made some narrow references to the industrial injuries scheme, which is a very limited part of the benefits for disabled people. When the hon. Gentleman studies what he actually said—I am not sure whether it was what he meant—I am sure that he will agree that his remarks were totally and utterly misleading.
The fact is that expenditure on benefits for disabled people has increased by more than 150 per cent. in real terms under the present Government. The number of people receiving mobility allowance has risen from fewer than 100,000 to more than 600,000. The number of people receiving attendance allowance has risen from about 250,000 to well over 750,000. In addition, the number of people receiving invalid care allowance has risen from 5,000 to 150,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "Those are just numbers."] It is all very well to say that those are just numbers but, as I said at the outset, I am interested in trying to help people who need help to be better off.
Even allowing for a measure of overlap of people receiving both attendance allowance and mobility allowance, in my judgment there is no way in which those figures could mean less than the fact that 1 million disabled people, who were not getting those benefits when the

present Government took office, now have a significantly higher standard of living as a result of what has transpired while this Government have been in office.

Mr. Dennis Turner: How can the Secretary of State say that he is interested in helping people when his Government have increased VAT from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. while they have been in office? What has been the effect of that? Will he tell us the real problems that that increase and imposition have presented to elderly and sick people? Tell us its impact on people in poverty.

Mr. Newton: The rates of taxation—whether indirect or direct—are taken into account when calculating the figures about which I had exchanges with the hon. Member for Birkenhead a few moments ago. The plain fact remains that the Select Committee concluded that real incomes have been rising right across the income band—

Ms. Gordon: rose

Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way again for a moment.
Apart from what has already been achieved in respect of the incomes of pensioners generally and in terms of directing additional help towards the less-well-off pensioners, which we have been doing consistently now for several years, and quite apart from the consistent improvements in the range and coverage of benefits for disabled people, we are now building on all that with the steps that we took at the time of the uprating in April.
The further real increase in income support premiums for older and more disabled pensioners, the introduction of new disability benefits—I stress that they are new disability benefits—which will give real extra help of at least £11.55 per week to about 300,000 disabled people over and above the numbers that I have given previously for what has happened in the past 10 to 12 years, and the changes in family credit to which, in the interests of keeping my speech brief, I have not referred will all enhance both the opportunities and the incomes of several tens of thousands of low-income families with children.
Even if the allegations that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has made about the scale of poverty could be made to run, and even if his proposed remedies were
thought to be the right ones—on at least one occasion his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has suggested that he has some doubts about that—the plainly observable fact is that the policies of the hon. Gentleman and his party simply do not add up. A glaring gap in our debate so far has been that the hon. Gentleman has not sought to deal with that point, although this is the second time that it has happened within a year.
Last March, we had the mini-shambles of the so-called "shadow Budget" which, if I remember rightly, did not even mention the so-called "priority" of retirement pensions. It contained what the hon. Gentleman described as a "carefully costed" proposal on child benefit which would have given money to every family except the least well-off—[Interruption.]—despite the fact that the document claimed that Labour's plans would give most help to low-income households. Just as that embarrassment might have been thought to be behind them, we have had the macro-shambles of what has happened in the past month.
First of all, there were the newspaper reports that other members of the shadow Cabinet were deeply frustrated with the way in which, true to form, the hon. Member for Oldham, West hijacked any extra cash that might be squeezed out of the taxpayer—to put it as the press reported it.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Newton: I am not giving way for the moment.
Those newspaper reports left me with a sense of deja vu. They reminded me of a report in The Guardian of 19 July 1986 under the heading "Labour clash on Meacher 'shopping list'". It said that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), now the deputy leader of the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West were
in serious dispute last night about election promises on public expenditure".
There were some interesting bits in the report, which could have been re-run by The Guardian in the past week or two.
The self-same deputy leader of the Labour party said in the article:
Committing the party to doing specific things, at a specific cost, at specific times, will not improve our electoral prospects.
The article also said:
In particular, the failure to spell out in detail new tax and insurance rates for higher earners is thought by Mr. Hattersley and some other colleagues to be a propaganda gift to the Government.
All that I can say is that the attempt to spell them out has been an even bigger propaganda gift to the Government in the past few weeks.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Newton: Then, after that little flurry, we had the leader of the Labour party himself, no less, writing his new year letter to tens of thousands of households—I am not even sure that the figure given was not a million. I have the letter here. In it he promised, as indeed the hon. Member for Oldham, West attempted to do this afternoon:
anyone earning less than £21,000 annually … will not pay a penny extra in income tax or in national insurance".
That is simply not true, and I think that the hon. Member
for Oldham, West knows it—and even acknowledged it in his speech. He chose to wave it away by saying that it would be only a few tens or hundreds.
A great many more people than that will pay more. Anyone who receives regular payments for commission or bonuses or who does substantial amounts of overtime will be significantly hit by the plans that the hon. Gentleman espouses and reiterated this afternoon. If he intends to continue espousing those plans, he had better drop that guarantee, because it is simply not true.

Mr. Graham Allen: On specific costs and promises, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could tell us what are his Government's specific promises—should they ever win the next election—in respect of pensions, child benefit and disability benefits? Is the right hon. Gentleman still holding to the position that those will all be increased in line with inflation?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that, at this very moment, our commitments are those which we will

implement in the April uprating. Of course, our general policies for the future will be set out when the time comes in a manifesto for the electorate. But I can tell the hon. Gentleman now, because we have made it clear on each and every front in recent weeks. We have made it clear that child benefit will be uprated in line with inflation. We have made it clear, despite repeated attempts by the hon. Member for Oldham, West to suggest otherwise, that we remain absolutely committed to the retirement pension and to protecting it against increases in prices. The hon. Gentleman need not doubt our continued commitment to protecting the value of disability benefits such as those I have talked about this afternoon, at a time when, far from cutting support to disabled people, we are extending those benefits.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. I am pleased to hear his assurances that increases in all those benefits will be related to the rise in inflation. He will have read the survey published by, not the Labour party—our costings do not have a party political basis, unlike those of the Secretary of State—but Midland Montagu, a respected and one could hardly say pro-Labour organisation. It concluded that, if they were kept, the Secretary of State's promises would cost another £25 billion in public expenditure. How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to pay for it, if he is elected?

Mr. Newton: That is a nonsense point. The Government's commitments on price protection or other uprating conventions for social security benefits are allowed for in the Government's public expenditure plans.

Mr. Allen: What plans?

Mr. Newton: Published, well known, well set out and beautifully presented plans.
The point about the commitments that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend make is that they are over and above the Government's carefully costed commitments. The hon. Gentleman cannot get out of the cost of his proposals unless he is prepared to tell me that he will go back on the commitments that we have made. He will not, will he?

Mr. Allen: I am happy to continue the dialogue with the Secretary of State. The Midland Montagu survey—not a party political survey and not one with which I would necessarily agree in every detail—says that the Secretary of State's proposals, as outlined today, would cost an additional £25 billion. Those are the words of an independent survey. Apparently, the whole Conservative package comes to an extra £35 billion.
Again, these are not statements which go on the hoardings. They are not party political propaganda. They are part of an independent survey. I give the Secretary of State the chance again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) gave him the chance on four occasions, to answer the question directly—how will a new Conservative Government pay for it?

Mr. Newton: As I have already said, the point is a complete nonsense point. Our commitments are part of carefully costed plans published in the ordinary way. It does not alter the fact that the Opposition's promises would not reduce the commitments that have already been entered into and planned for. The Opposition would pile another £37 billion on top of them.
That point brings me to the dog which astonishingly has not barked during the debate. It is the answer to the questions which everyone in the House and outside has asked in the light of the incredible confusion of recent weeks, when the whole package that Labour had said was carefully worked out and costed crashed into splinters on a dinner table in Luigi's in Covent Garden.
It may be that this afternoon the hon. Member for Oldham, West has answered one of the questions—whether the priority pledges are still priority pledges. I think that it could be read into his remarks that they are. But there were only two priority pledges in everything that we have heard until now. There is another in the motion, and the hon. Gentleman referred to it in his speech. It is the restoration of the earnings link.
If that is a priority pledge, is it also for immediate implementation? If so, that is another substantial increase in the Labour party's "immediate bill"—to use its words—which it does not know how to meet. Is the hon. Member for Oldham, West going to answer these questions? They are the questions to which everyone wants to know the answer. Indeed, we need to know the answer to have any chance whatever of judging just what Opposition Members think they are saying. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to answer—

Mr. Meacher: rose —

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State is getting very nervous in his fabrication of bogus questions. We have made it absolutely clear that the pensions link with earnings will be restored. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Perhaps Conservative Members who want to know the exact date when all these changes will be made will answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) just asked. The Government propose to cut income tax by 5p, from 25p to 20p. At what rate will it be phased in? All in the first year? Or 1p a year? How will it be paid for? That is not in the Government's public expenditure plans.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that any reduction in income tax will be subject to all the usual considerations at a particular point in time and that no commitment has been made about specific timing.

Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—

Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way, as this is important.
We are faced with something quite different from any aim that the Government might have to reduce income tax further. As I understand it—the hon. Member for Oldham, West can tell me if I am wrong—we are confronting firm commitments, which have frequently been reiterated, to implement promises on child benefit and the retirement pension immediately. The hon. Gentleman does not dispute that.
In the motion, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has linked a third ingredient—the earnings link—which had never been put in those terms before. That implies that it should be seen in those terms. I can only read into what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has just said the fact that restoration of the earnings link is not a priority for immediate implementation but what the hon.
Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would describe as a "desirable aim"—this year, next year, some time or never.

Sir Peter Hordern: Could my right hon. Friend help me in my confusion? I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) say that he felt that our social security programme was too expensive and that Midland Montagu had quoted a price of about £25 billion. Did my right hon. Friend gather from that that the Labour party was thinking of cutting our social security expenditure programme? If expenditure were to increase above that, how is the money to be found?
Would my right hon. Friend kindly help me, because I am increasingly confused by the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said that the Labour party programme will include a link with earnings for retirement pensions. Government may have some control over inflation, but it is absolute pie in the sky for any party to say that a link could be attached to average earnings, over which there is no control.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend underlines the argument I was seeking to make in response to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. Of course, the Government have clearly set out, in a variety of documents, their forward commitments on public expenditure. Nothing suggested by the Labour party would reduce those commitments, but it has put forward a wide range of proposals—including the proposal that my hon. Friend adverts to—which would increase those commitments by about £37 billion, and we do not yet know how that will be paid for. We do not even know how the so-called immediate priority commitments would be paid for.
From widely reported events involving the Leader of the Opposition, we understand that the critical ingredient—the removal of the upper earnings limit—is likely to be phased in. Will it be phased in? If so, how? Will those closer to the earnings limit—the less well-off—get the first bash, or will all those involved pay 5 per cent. in the first year, 7 per cent. in the second and reach 9 per cent. in the third? In that case, phasing in simply means that the same group of people will be clobbered not once but year in, year out, for as long as it takes to get the money.
Crucially, since we were told that the package was carefully costed and balanced, if revenue is to be phased in, will commitments be phased in too? Do they cease to be immediate priorities?
I sense that I shall get no further answers, and I conclude by saying that the hon. Gentleman's statistics do not add up and his financial calculations and policies do not stand up. Both the House and the country will rightly conclude that they should vote his motion down.

Mr. Frank Field: I do not intend to continue the conversation about statistics as the Secretary of State has largely conceded that argument. I merely put on record that his quotations from the report of the Select Committee on Social Security were highly selective, especially the crucial quotation about average living standards having increased. Under the Government's stewardship, the poorest people have received the smallest increase. I hope that before the end of the debate someone


will have read the report for the Secretary of State and passed him a note so that his junior colleague can put that on record.
I wish to mention some of my constituents who are now without hope because of the policies pursued by the Government. I do not say that everyone in Birkenhead is in that position, nor that some people have not managed to improve their lot during the Government's stewardship, but I wish to register the fact that destroying people's hope destroys something important for their status as citizens and I shall devote the four minutes of my contribution to that.
I hope that if I introduce some of my constituents to the House and to the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman will instruct the junior Minister to provide in his reply the message that he wishes me to take home to them.

Mr. Derek Foster: Vote Labour!

Mr. Field: Apart from the Whip's general comment, for the first group we want immediate hope rather than waiting until April or May. The first group comprises those who have left school and have no work and are not on a training course. The Government made a promise about the courses that would be available, but they have shifted on that. I refer not to the Department of Social Security but to the Department of Employment. There was a specific promise that people not at school and not in work would be guaranteed a training place. That has been relegated to a general promise, but my young constituents are not covered by a general promise—they are individuals, and a small army of them do not have the training places that they want and have great difficulty in drawing benefit. What message does the Secretary of State want me to take home to them?
The second group are those who have left school with no hope of finding work. As the unemployment figures rise, more people's heads are pushed below the sea of unemployment and remain below it for some considerable time. A group of people in Birkenhead, after leaving school and trying and failing to get work, are now bringing up families but have never known what it is like to work. What hope has the Secretary of State to offer them? They are not terribly interested in the figures that he is bandying across the Dispatch Box. They want the chance to work. What concrete hope does he hold out for them?
Thirdly, what hope does the Secretary of State hold out for the young mother who came to my surgery and matter of factly described the difference between sleeping on the floor of her parents-in-law's home, which is carpeted, and sleeping on her own floor with no carpet? What hope does he hold out for my constitutents who find themselves in that position? What hope does the Secretary of State hold out for other young constituents who, after years without work, have managed to find it? One constituent, because he had to get to work before public transport started running in the morning, had to buy a bicycle to get through the Mersey tunnel to work. Because he wanted to work, he snatched at that opportunity. The employer, knowing his power because many other young people wanted the job, played the field and sacked him. Now he has to meet the debt caused by the bicycle. He searched again for a job and found one in Chester. The employer,

aware of his powerful position, would not pay in advance but told my constituent that he would have to exist in some way or other until the normal pay day came round. Given the rules that the Department operates, what hope does the right hon. Gentleman hold out for such young constituents who are struggling for work?
The debate is about showing that, whereas some people are not at the bottom of the pile, many are just a few wage packets or salary cheques from being pushed to the bottom.
A constituent of mine, who worked at Cammell Laird, had a heart attack. The first correspondence that he received from the company after the heart attack was to tell him that he had been made redundant. He has two young sons; one is working and the other is not. The working son earns a low wage and the other is on benefit and therefore should be making a contribution toward the costs of the household. As the Minister knows, the benefit for those in that son's age group is desperately low. But the son in work earns even less than the son on benefit and finds it even more difficult to make a contribution to the household.
That former worker at Laird's told me with great pride that the one great thing that he has done is to bring up a loving family. That is his great treasure, but he now realises that if he and his wife are to survive and get the extra help that they need, he will have to put his sons out. More help would then be available because the sons would not be considered as part of the household. That is the way the Government have been destroying hope over a long period.
The next election will not be fought on the finer points of the Select Committee report or what consultants say will be the costs of the next programmes: it will be fought, I hope, on the fact that the Labour party appreciates what the difficulties are and is determined in the next Parliament to give back hope to those people at the bottom of society who have had their hope destroyed by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Simon Burns: It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I have been lucky enough to do so on a number of occasions in social security debates. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow the comments that he so movingly made about his constituents.
I think that it was Abraham Lincoln who said 140 years ago:
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.
In the past few months, and certainly in the past three weeks, the Labour party has been trying to defy that norm and to fool all the people all of the time. The hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) have been trawling up and down the country trying to outbid each other in the promises and commitments that they have made to special interest groups in the sole desire to win votes for the Labour party at the next general election.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman yet. Will he please sit down?

Mr.Allen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on.

Mr. Burns: The House will find that the hon. Gentleman will speak to disabled groups and promise them more money immediately.

Mr.Allen: rose—

Mr. Burns: I shall give way when I finish the point. The hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Oldham, West have visited groups of young mothers, the elderly, pregnant mothers, young people, and the long-term unemployed and promised them all more money. What is happening is a cruel deception. Those hon. Members are speaking to audiences and telling them what they think those people want to hear in the hope that they will vote for the Labour party when polling day comes. I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North now.

Mr. Allen: No, thank you; I have changed my mind.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to have silenced the hon. Gentleman. That does not happen often.
What groups have not been singled out by the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of British politics in their grubby pursuit of votes for the Labour party? It is like a magic roundabout—and when the roundabout comes full circle they are not lost for time, but start again outbidding each other with further promises to all those special interest groups to try to secure their votes.
We have a further problem, although it does not seem to matter to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, when it comes to what has become known in British political history as "Beckett's law". The Labour party is spreading pledges of spending money like confetti, but Beckett's law states that only child benefit and pensions will be the priority. However, we learned last night in the debate on the autumn statement that a third priority is to be added to Beckett's law, relating to industrial policy.
The shadow Department of Social Security team has pledged £15 billion of spending commitments. That is no more than a cynical attempt to win votes. The Opposition are building up hopes and expectations, but if we were ever unfortunate enough to have a Labour Government, those aspirations would be cruelly destroyed by the reality of office because the Labour party has no ability to honour so many of the pledges that it has made.
For party political reasons, the Labour party refuses to recognise what has been done by the Government to help the genuinely less well off, the disabled, the unemployed, the elderly and the sick. In the past 12 years, a great deal has been done. It ill befits any politician to criticise the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As a junior Minister, and as a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for social security, he has fought his corner decisively to ensure that more money is made available by the mandarins at the Treasury to help the less well off in our society.
No one listening to the doom and gloom of the hon. Member for Oldham, West would fully appreciate the exact size of our social security budget. From April this year, the social security budget will be more than £70 billion per year. Those hon. Members who do not appreciate the sheer size of that budget should bear in mind that it is equivalent to £1.35 billion per week, £192

million per day or £8 million for every hour of every day of every week of the year. That is all being spent to provide for the less well off in society. It is a pity that the Opposition do not have the decency and integrity to acknowledge that fact and to mention it once or twice.
One would think that there was not a penny in the social security budget if one listened to the hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Oldham, West day after day in the Chamber and in the country. They complain about and cry down every Government addition to the social security budget. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech, and as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Oldham, West, they fail to do justice to the fact that pensions have increased in real terms and money for the sick and the disabled has increased in the past 12 years. I honestly believe that a little more credit should be given for the money that has gone in particular to the sick and disabled to help them in their times of crisis and to make their lives better. In 1988, eight out of 10 pensioners had extra income from savings, compared with six out of 10 under the previous Labour Government, and 73 per cent. have additional occupational pensions compared with 52 per cent. in 1979. We have heard no mention of family credit, which helps a record 356,000 families—four times as many as those helped under the old family income supplement in 1979.
We have heard little today from the Opposition about the substantial extra help given to pensioners over 75 and to those below that age who are disabled. Apart from their hollow spending promises, Labour's only answer is a minimum wage. Imagine the fatuous reality of implementing that proposal in this country. A minimum wage would do more to put people out of work than any help it was designed to give. Experience in France and the United States shows that a minimum wage is a con. It would be a con on the British people, for while it sounds simplistically attractive in principle, in practice it would cause more misery by causing more job losses.
Labour also proposes the introduction of a pickpocket tax that would have made Fagin proud to be associated with it. It would mean more money being taken from the people—[Interruption.] I refer, of course, to the proposal to abolish the ceiling on national insurance contributions. Many more people would be hit by that than Labour Members dare to mention. That has become obvious in the past two weeks in the shambles and infighting among members of the shadow Cabinet, who fear that Labour has been rumbled in terms of its tax and national insurance plans.
The Opposition motion is a sham and should be seen as such. The country at large should accept that dogs bark, cats miaow, and Labour taxes and spends.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will forgive me if I do not adopt his approach to the debate. I would prefer—if I had to choose—the approach of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
I hope that we shall take the opportunity of the public discussions that will take place in the period leading up to the general election to try as best we can—I appreciate the party political pressures—to transform the debate to enable ordinary people to understand what is going on. When we come to the fine detail of issues, it is easy to lose


people, especially when we refer to large sums of money. For example, £35 billion does not mean a lot to people in Hawick high street. We forget that in the heat of political jousting. I make no complaint about that, because I shall be doing my fair share of dishing it out when the time comes. Let us bear that in mind as we near the election.
There are two ways of considering social security provision and the system as a whole. The Conservatives are more in favour—I put it no higher than that—of a low tax, low benefit system. They have been moving over the years in the direction of the American system—[Interruption.] I think I see the Minister of State dissenting from that view. I do not say that our system is anything like as freewheeling and inadequate as the American, but that is the direction in which we have been going. If there had to be a choice between two systems, it is fair to say that the continuing trend that we have experienced under Conservative rule in the last 12 years has been to make provision, but to try to constrain the benefits system while maintaining a low-tax economy.
The alternative system—this is common ground, certainly bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—represents a trend in the opposite direction. We on the Opposition Benches would be prepared to carry a higher burden of taxation and to redeploy or redistribute the money in as sensible a way as possible. While there may be substantial differences between my party and Labour about how that money would be redeployed, I have basically described the divide between the two sides of the House.
In other words, the electorate have a clear choice. I am happy to go to the voters on the basic principle that they have a straight alternative between the Government position and the proposals of the Opposition parties. That is almost as far as one need go to enable people to make a sensible choice.
Even so, important subsidiary arguments can be brought to bear. The Government must defend their record. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I dissent from the official Opposition view that everything that the Government have done has been a disaster. The Minister of State can take credit, along with the Secretary of State, who has fought his corner well—the Treasury has been the problem in many respects—for many of the changes for the good affecting the disabled.
The Government must defend their record in terms of the amount that the social security budget consumes because of the level of unemployment in Britain. In other words, part of the social security argument must be about the way in which the Conservatives have managed the economy. Indeed, if they continue to make the sort of mess that they have been making—particularly recalling the 1987–88 period, when they made substantial blunders as a result of deregulating the economy, with the explosion of credit and so on—we shall find ourselves in an even worse situation.
I fear that high levels of unemployment will be with us for much longer than we would like to see. If that turns out to be the case, our plans for long-term social security planning will have to be revised, even if the Conservatives are returned to power. After all, £35 billion will not go far in the next five to 10 years if chronically high levels of unemployment persist. So we must decide which side of the

argument we are on. Do we want a transatlantic model of social security provision, or more of a European, collective scheme of the type that my hon. Friends and I favour?
We can have a meaningful debate about the way in which benefits are deployed. Having served on the Standing Committee which considered the Social Security Act 1986, certain areas of provision are causing me concern. I accept that recent increases in provision for the over-75s have helped, but the present generation of pensioners do not receive a basic level of support as a result of the changes that were made in the 1986 Act. Some of the changes resulting from that legislation have been welcome, but major problems must be addressed because of the structure that was created by that Act.
The provision made for those in the 16-to-17 and, generally, the under-25 age groups must be reconsidered, because there have been some unforeseen consequences of that legislation. Some of those changes are being seen in the streets now. I feel sure that that was not the Government's intention, and that they are as concerned as anyone else to remedy matters. Whatever the complexion of the next Government, they will have to deal with those issues.
I am concerned about the way in which the social fund changes have been made. I have constituents with what I consider to be bona fide claims which the social fund cannot meet, and the next Administration, whatever their complexion, will have to deal with those. I have not seen the Secretary of State lose many arguments in exchanges across the Floor of the House, but he lost substantially when he took on the hon. Member for Birkenhead after having foolishly quoted selectively from the Select Committee report.
While I am willing to hear the Government's answer, it seems incontrovertible that the bottom one fifth, particularly pensioners, have lost in the total income increase of 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987. That poorest fifth receives a 19 per cent. increase. If that is allowed to continue year in, year out, the next Government will have to deal with it one way or another. It may be expensive, and they may have to be ingenious in how they target the money. I do not care how it is done, but something must be done in the medium to long term to cope with the problem.
We have spent precious little time debating the levels of benefit. We must look much more carefully at how the demographic structure is changing. The "Social Trends" report published recently makes an important contribution to that. It has become difficult to describe family structure, which has become a meaningless concept, because there is such a diverse and wide range of combinations, and it is becoming ever more complicated. That may be good or bad—I make no judgment—but, in trying to deal with income problems from the social security bunker, we can easily forget that some of the overlapping changes in the population's social structure have a severe and dramatic impact.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of long-term unemployment on the hope in people's hearts, to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead referred. The social security system may not be adequate to deal with that, and the voluntary sector may have a role to play. I do not suggest that the voluntary sector in terms of charity should replace the money provided, but it could play a greater role.


Finally, I am very worried about rural poverty. My constituency is a rural area and it looks idyllic, as Ministers who have visited it will confirm. Of my 103,000 constituents, 5,000 pensioners and 6,000 non-pensioners are on income support. If dependants' families are counted, some 17,000 people are dependent on income support in the borders and south-east Scotland. The poor are getting poorer, and rural poverty is beginning to be an issue for the first time since I came to the House in 1983. I hope that the Government will do something about that.
If the Minister of State wants to do something immediately, will he talk to the Benefits Agency about the relocation of the cold weather payment temperature station? I have just checked the figures, and I have found that the Eskdalemuir station has been triggered 11 times in the past six years. The newly selected Boulmer station, which serves a large chunk of my constituency since the recent changes, has been triggered only once in that period. The system may have been unfair before, but it is now extremely unfair. I shall take the Minister to Eskdalemuir and Boulmer if he would like to come. He had better bring his kilt and his thermal underwear, because the point will be made to him graphically. If some of those points were made to the DSS, a better system could be introduced.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I rise to oppose the Opposition motion and to support the Prime Minister's amendment because real freedom is economic, and the freedom to earn and spend one's own money as one wishes, untrammelled by state control, is the truest freedom of all.
When I consider how the Government have managed to increase the economic freedom of the British people, I see a good track record. That is why, despite my lifetime's work for those in need in the United Kingdom and overseas, in common with the work of so many colleagues in the House, I do not believe that the Opposition's vision of the United Kingdom is realistic. Indeed, were the Opposition to reach the status of Government for which they fight so hard, growth in the United Kingdom would be badly hindered because we would have lost our product champion. The Conservative party can champion the United Kingdom, but the Opposition cannot do so because their vision of this country growing ever poorer is ever further from reality.
Since 1979, the net disposable income of the average family has risen by 37 per cent.—a truly massive increase. I am sorry that there is a recession, but it is, after all, world wide and not unique to Britain. Despite the recession, Britain has achieved 800,000 new jobs since 1979. In addition, 3 million new firms have been created, which is nearly a two thirds increase in the number of businesses. Despite the depressing figures pumped out by the Opposition on firms going bankrupt and companies going into liquidation, in the past 12 months for which figures are available there were only 30,000 insolvencies—just 3 per cent. of the total number of firms in the United Kingdom.
The authoritative low income statistics produced by the Select Committee on Social Security in May 1991 and commissioned by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies show that real disposable incomes grew by more than 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, with increases in

real income at all levels of the income scale. I mentioned earlier that the net disposable income of the average family had risen by 37 per cent. Although averages are difficult to grasp when one is feeling the pinch, which is an uncomfortable position to be in, real disposable incomes in the United Kingdom as a whole rose by nearly a third. Indeed, households at the very bottom income decile saw their incomes rise by 9.5 per cent. during that period. Less well-off families with children also saw large increases.
The incomes of non-pensioner couples in the bottom half of the income bracket with children rose by 19 per cent. in real terms, and even the poorest fifth of full-time workers were 21 per cent. better off in 1988 than in 1981. According to the Select Committee report, the number of people on less than half the average income in 1979—when that is held constant in real terms—fell from 3.7 million to 2.5 million. Those who were pensioners in the bottom half of the income decile fell from 29 per cent. to 23 per cent., with a consequent fall also in the number of pensioners.
Statisticians know how difficult it is to make meaningful comparisons. The Library managed to give me an index showing wages and salaries in 48 major cities. On this basis, London is 24th in terms of gross salary and 22nd in terms of net salary. That means that people here get a higher net salary than people in Stockholm or in Paris. On top of that, believe it or not, house prices in the United Kingdom are relatively cheap, especially in comparison with Germany, one of our largest and most influential competitors.
Far from being able to support the Opposition motion, I put it to the House that this country and western Europe have had a long and perhaps unique period of growth over the past 12 years. The Opposition cannot pretend that that is due to their policies. It is due to good, solid, Conservative free market policies. I know that the Labour party says that it is no longer socialist, despite its continued return to centralism. But if socialist policies were able to achieve those much higher levels of income for the human race, why is it that the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, with their new conditionalities for helping the poorer countries of the world to improve their incomes, do not follow socialist policies? The new conditionalities that govern the lending proposals of the World bank and the IMF, the lending proposals that have helped poorer countries get upstairs in terms of income and share western European and British prosperity, are free market conditionalities. They are the free market with a heart—in other words, the true Conservative philosophy.
That is why I suggest that the Labour party is misleading the public grotesquely, sadly, disgracefully, abominably. I do not think that the public are willing to be misled. I honour the Labour party for trying to be the modern Robin Hood, but its facade of a modern Robin Hood will not work. I give one small example: despite the Labour party's social security promises to raise child benefit and payments to pensioners, an Opposition spokesman has already managed to account for nearly half that spending wish-list, £15 billion out of £35 billion, by talking about other commitments which are supposedly equally high priorities.
The truth is that the Labour party will not mislead the public sufficiently to be elected, because the public are too hard-headed. The country has grown wealthier and happier under our management and will continue to thrive.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I must say to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that "Social Trends", published yesterday, shows that the incomes of the top 5 per cent. of the population have increased, whereas the incomes of the bottom 5 per cent. have fallen. That is the answer to many of her points.
I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the country, a constituency in Tower Hamlets. I can cite, from experience at my surgery, hundreds of cases of poverty and people living in hardship that would wring the hearts of even Conservative Members. I shall deal with statistics that draw together different sections of the population and show what is happening and how poverty is increasing. I shall mostly use official Government statistics on households with below average incomes.
The Government have tried repeatedly to change the definition of poverty. They accept that, if a person is dying of starvation, he or she is living in poverty. But they will not accept what most people believe, that if one cannot keep up with the community in which one is living, if one cannot send one's children properly clothed and shod to school and give them enough money to take part in extra-curricular activities, if one cannot give them a decent meal and some presents at Christmas—in other words, keep within the society on a decent level—one is poor and living in poverty.
The attempt to redefine poverty has gone on for a long time. In May 1989, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), the then Secretary of State for Social Security, made a speech under the heading, "The end of the line for poverty", in which he had the cheek to claim that poverty no longer existed in Britain. Other Conservative Members have also tried to make that point. The storm that that speech provoked proved to be the end of the line for the right hon. Gentleman. He should have known better, because he told me at one time that he grew up in the east end of London. But he did not know better—he had forgotten what poverty was.
The Government continually try to fiddle figures. Unfortunately, despite their attempt to appear to abolish poverty, it has continued to increase. They try to abolish the word from their official reports instead of trying to abolish poverty itself.
In 1989, the Government's own manicured figures showed that the number of people at or below supplementary benefit level had grown by more than 50 per cent. Their response was merely to abolish the low-income family statistical series and replace it with the households below average income series, which they hoped would disguise the trend of increasing poverty. Unfortunately, the trend was so stark that no amount of statistical manipulation could make it vanish.
The Government's statistics show that the number of people in families earning below 50 per cent. of average income did not just double between 1979 and 1988, but increased by more than two and a half times from 4,930,000 to 11,750,000. The figure of 10 million has been quoted, but the Government's statistics show that it was 11,750,000. Those statistics have been confirmed by independent researchers, such as the Breadline British team, who carry out scientific studies of poverty and deprivation in Britain today. The figures also show that more than 11 million people live in direst poverty—that

means that 20 per cent. of the population and more than 25 per cent. of our children live on or below the breadline. That is a dreadful picture, but it is true.
Margaret Thatcher repeatedly claimed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.

Ms. Gordon: I am sorry. The previous Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—repeatedly claimed that everyone had become better off under the Conservatives. What a terrible slip: I am sure that hon. Gentlemen are very worried that I used the name instead of the constituency, but I doubt that the unemployed will worry unduly.
The Government's statistics state that in 1979 there were 1 million unemployed people in Britain, but in 1988 there were more than 2.5 million unemployed people living in poverty. I believe that there are many more than 2.5 million unemployed people living in poverty, but let us take that figure, which is awful enough. The families of these unemployed people have not done better under the Conservatives.
Then there are the pensioners. In 1979, there were just over 1 million pensioners living in poverty. By 1988, there were more than 3.5 million. Those people have not done better under the Conservatives. In 1979, there were just over 1 million low-paid full-time workers living in poverty. In 1988 the number had risen to 2.5 million. Low-paid workers have not done better under the Conservatives either. In 1979, there were 500,000 single parents living in poverty. In 1988, there were 1.5 million.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Gordon: No, I will not. The Minister refused to give way to me twice. I have only a short time and I will not give way. I want to finish drawing this picture.
By 1988, 1.5 million single parents, three quarters of all single-parent families, lived in poverty. They have not done better under the Conservatives.
The last group I want to mention was dealt with at length by the Minister—the sick and the disabled. The increases in benefits for the sick and the disabled have not been sufficient to shield even them from the overall effects of Government policies. Yesterday's "Social Trends" showed that, whereas the top 5 per cent. of the population spent 12.4 per cent. of their income on indirect taxation, indirect taxation took up 24 per cent. of the income of those in the bottom 5 per cent., which includes the sick and disabled. That is just one example. By 1988, three quarters of a million sick and disabled people were living on low incomes. Clearly, they are not better off under the Conservatives.
The increase in poverty has taken a terrible toll. Its effects can be seen by everyone in the number of youngsters begging in the streets. I remember going to Paris with my school the year before the war, when I was 15, and seeing beggars outside Notre Dame. I was shocked because it was the first time that I had ever seen beggars. One did not see beggars even during the depression but now one can see them everywhere on our streets. While we sit in the warm and dry, thousands of old people sit huddled over one-bar fires in cold, damp houses. Those are the terrible effects of poverty.
Poverty has also had an effect on health. Look at the statistics. For 150 years, the death rate for young males between the ages of one and 44 had been falling—the only interruption in that decline being the slaughter of young


men during two world wars. Now doctors save more and more lives but, since 1985, the death rate for males in that age group has started to increase. The Government have managed to achieve what previously only the German armies achieved. Why are young men dying? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] Okay. Of the richer countries in the world, only Britain and America, which pursues the same voodoo economics as we do, have an increasing death rate among young males. The Registrar-General's report and the report of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys—the House will admit that that is not a biased Labour report—stated that the main causes of the decline were poor diet and suicide. In the past 12 years, the suicide rate of young men has risen dramatically—by 50 per cent.
The desperation caused by poverty is increasing and making more and more young men suicidal, but it is women who are bearing the brunt of that increasing poverty. They have to absorb and handle the whole family's emotional turmoil, trauma and despair caused by unemployment. They also make up the majority in all the disadvantaged groups whom I have mentioned. They are the majority of pensioners and, therefore, of the sick and disabled. They are the majority of low-paid part-time workers. They are the majority of single parents. They are also the widows of those who have died prematurely. Women are certainly not better off under the Conservatives.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: I wish to address the issue of poverty in my constituency and as it affects many of my constituents, and to focus specifically on the related issues of ill health, unemployment, old age and inequality.
I represent a diverse constituency made up of deeply rural, scattered, ex-mining villages—geographically isolated and suffering from heavy structural unemployment—and large so-called peripheral housing estates, housing people from the conurbations of Middlesbrough and Stockton. Those areas too suffer from high and continuing unemployment—its effects made worse by the comparative isolation from the facilities of central Middlesbrough and from families and friends still living in the town.
I do not intend to be emotional on these subjects—although emotions certainly run high when local people discuss the Government's wicked and callous neglect of areas such as Langbaurgh. I intend to make the figures speak for themselves.
Experts have long recognised that there is a causal relationship between unemployment and ill health. Much of the pioneering work on the subject was carried out on Teesside—in particular in Stockton-on-Tees—in the early 1930s, when empirical and sustainable evidence was first produced to suggest that the links between health, nutrition, disposable income and work patterns were strong, lifelong and of the community and—perhaps most important in today's terms—that the problems were solvable.
It is perhaps a mark of how similar the 1930s and the present day have been on Teesside that the work has been taken up again. In the late 1980s, Cleveland county council, together with representatives of the community health councils in the county and the then family practitioner committee, issued a report on the health divide which appeared to characterise the Cleveland

community. The report—called "The Health Legacy"—showed comprehensively and conclusively that, in terms of physical health, there was a clear link between poverty and unemployment and ill health. The study showed that, according to the figures available, above-average death rates resulted in more than 800 extra deaths per year. Deaths from diseases of the lung were running at 25 per cent. above average. People in Cleveland die almost two years younger than other members of the wider community.
The links between poverty and ill health were graphically depicted. In parts of the borough of Langbaurgh where, as a result of the Government's policies, unemployment and poverty are part of the social landscape, the mortality rate rises to as much as 50 per cent. above the national rate and can be twice as high as in the more fortunate parts of the county of Cleveland. Put simply, the gulf in health and mortality between the rich and the poor in Cleveland is among the most extreme in the whole of the United Kingdom and some local people in areas of high disadvantage can expect to live 10 years less than those in the more affluent suburbs.
I represent parts of the county where the picture is bleakest. The study to which I referred earlier—"The Health Legacy"—showed that the east Cleveland villages of Skinningrove and Brotton and the south Middlesbrough overspill estate of Hemlington have 'standardised mortality ratios'—the official measure of the death rate—running between 15 and 50 per cent. above the national average. To put it quite simply, there are communities in my constituency where, because of the high incidence of unemployment and low income, people have a lower expectation of life and a more unhealthy existence than anyone living in the comparative comfort of southern England—and certainly of anyone here tonight.
It is not just a question of unemployment. Ageing, ill health and poverty are all linked. The elderly are the largest single group living on low incomes in my constituency—25 per cent. The majority are widowed, live alone and are utterly vulnerable to the effects of poverty, many having no occupational pension. Labour Members know—and Conservative Members know privately, even if they have to deny it publicly—that basic state pensions have had the little purchasing power that they once possessed cut drastically. It is a simple fact—but one that needs to be uttered time and again—that, if earnings indexation had not been ended in 1980, the basic pension would now be £17.50 higher than it is. Nationally, one third of the elderly are below what we consider to be the poverty line—three times the rate for the population as a whole.
Elderly people also suffer in terms of access to what many people regard as normal parts of daily life. The mushroom growth of out-of-town retailing—shopping designed to meet the needs of the high-spending car owner—has forced many elderly people to use expensive estate stores, or even dearer mobile shops. The value of an already depleted pension is thus eroded even further.
The outline of poverty in Cleveland is sharply focused. The areas where poverty is at its worst are bleakly obvious. Unemployment and ill health are the most obvious features, but low wages, the loss of assured, continued employment, the break-up of marriages, the loss of stable family relationships, and eroded—indeed, almost valueless—benefits are all part of a deadly spiral that absorbs all too many of my constituents.
The dimensions of poverty are self-evident. The situation has worsened. The yawning gap between low incomes and high incomes has widened. Wealth generates wealth. Only last week, the Inland Revenue published figures showing that the richest 1 per cent. of the population own 18 per cent. of the nation's marketable wealth—the wealth contained in homes, household durables, savings and investments—whereas the poorest 50 per cent., or half of the population, own less than 6 per cent. of that marketable wealth.
The decline in mortality nationally has been more marked among manual workers and the unemployed than among the nation's white-collar workers, and there is evidence that this trend is accelerating. The Tory think tanks, which argued that wealth would trickle down, that increased prosperity for the rich would have an impact on the lives of the poor, have been shown to have been telling fairy stories. Instead of wealth trickling down, we have seen wealth streaming upwards.
The legacy of Lloyd George, Beveridge and Aneurin Bevan—a decent health and national insurance scheme—has been squandered in 13 short years. Benefits are dismal and have been eroded in value. In 1979, the state pension was 20 per cent. of average earnings. I believed then, and I still believe, that that figure was too low, but even it has been cut and now stands at 16 per cent.
I intended to speak about various other aspects of this matter——

Mr. Allen: Wrap it up.

Dr. Kumar: I have been told from the Front Bench to wrap it up.
In conclusion, I have to say that, as a Member of Parliament representing an area where poverty is an inescapable fact of daily life and not merely a subject for a college lecture theatre, I am deeply and utterly angered by the conditions in which far too many of my constituents have to live. I am deeply angered too by the disinterested and offhand treatment meted out to the poor by the present Government. I have seen too much silent suffering, too many families faced with disintegration, to treat this matter as an idle debating foil.
The poorest in our society need a Labour Government. They need a Labour Government who recognise the importance of ordinary human needs; they need a Labour Government who have the insight, the ability and the muscle to change things for the better and to aid their own community in its task of mapping out its destiny. They need, above everything else, the knowledge that they can come out from the shadows to which they have been consigned by 13 years of Tory heartlessness and indifference.

Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friends the Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) have told the House how so many of their constituents are suffering as a result of Government policy. I wish to do likewise, and to do so by briefly making three points.
Undoubtedly, many pensioners live in great poverty. I understand that the Government do not deny this, but they say that most pensioners have improved their lot—

something that we question. None the less, they do accept that many pensioners suffer hardship. Indeed, they could hardly deny it.
This week, I received from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), an interesting answer to a question that I had tabled. It illustrates only too well what we are concerned about and what we want to see changed. The junior Minister informed me that, according to the latest information, 22 per cent. of pensioners have an income of less than £60 per week.
Can hon. Members imagine what it is like to live on less than £60 a week? If there are Conservative Members who believe that it is easy, that no great hardship is involved, let them try it for just a short period. That is something that I have suggested before. According to the answer to which I have just referred, 38 per cent. of pensioners have an income of less than £70 a week. As the pension is increased only with price increases, any change that has occurred since those figures were provided cannot have made a great difference.
That is the background to this debate so far as a very large group of people—the pensioners—are concerned, leaving aside people of working age who are unemployed. When so many retired people in this country have to live on such incomes, it is clear that there is something wrong. It is understandable that so many pensioners should take the view that they are considerably worse off than pensioners in many other European Community countries.
I want to mention also the changes that occurred in 1980, when the link with earnings was broken. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that pensioners had lost, I think, £23 a week. In fact, he was being too generous to the Government. A note that I have received from the Library shows that, if the pension had been increased in line with earnings since 1980, married couples would be better off, by April of this year, by £28 a week, and single people by £17.65. That is how much pensioners have lost. Had the link not been broken, pensioners would be that much better off.
The second matter concerns housing benefit and the changes made in 1988. Other figures in the answer to which I have referred are also interesting. I asked how much of the income was spent on rent and poll tax. The percentage is considerable. Those on less than £60 a week pay 20 per cent. of that in rent and poll tax, and someone with less than £70 a week pays 24 per cent., or nearly a quarter. That increases the poverty and the hardship, and it is something that must be changed when a Labour Government come to office.
The final point that I want to make is one that I have made repeatedly. It concerns the additional difficulties that those on low incomes experience during the winter months. In my view, the cold weather payment is inadequate. There ought to be a far more generous scheme. The payment is made only when the temperature falls to zero or below for seven consecutive days, and the amount is £5 a week.

The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): It is £6.

Mr. Winnick: Yes, £6.
But it is often very cold even when the temperature does not reach zero—as it is today. People on low incomes find


it even more difficult to make ends meet when they have to try to keep their accommodation warm. It is very warm in this Chamber, and Members of Parliament, when they go home, do not have any difficulties about heating, but how on earth is it possible for anyone on less than £60 or £70 a week to keep a home adequately heated? I am, of course, taking into account any heating additions to income support. How do such people, during the winter months, pay electricity bills and gas bills? It is understandable that pensioners, fearful of receiving heating bills that they could not possibly meet, ensure that they economise. Unfortunately, many of them put themselves in danger of hypothermia and other health risks.
Figures and accusations have been bandied about today. I must be perfectly frank and say that I do not know whether a Labour Government could do everything that I should like done to relieve poverty. I shall not say that much of what I should like to see done could be done within the first few months, or even the first few years, of a Labour Government's term. However, my party is genuinely committed to trying to relieve the poverty that far too many people in this country are living in.
We are not talking about a few thousand or even a few hundred thousand. That would be bad enough—indeed, with any of our fellow citizens in such a plight we should be concerned—but we are talking about literally millions of people. I do not believe that there is genuine commitment on the part of Conservatives to end poverty. They have none of the commitment that we have.
If, when in office, a Labour Government are not doing as much as they should be, although I believe that they will take the right steps, there will be immense pressure from Labour Back Benchers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not apologise for saying that. I notice no such pressure from Tory Back Benchers on the Government, because, as I have said, they have no genuine commitment to ending the hardship and destitution which so many of our fellow citizens suffer. That is why we need a change of Government; we need a Labour Government, whenever the election is called, to try to sort out the difficulties that we have described tonight.

Mr. Graham Allen: I welcome this debate because poverty can be a difficult issue to discuss. It is a great tribute to the Conservative party propaganda machine that poverty is not on the daily agenda and is not a matter of public outrage in every daily newspaper. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has some measures in mind to help free up the press in this country, which in turn will facilitate an open debate so that more and more people are made aware of the real causes of poverty.
Poverty is not given the importance that it deserves. There are some disabling popular prejudices about it. For instance, it is always something that affects other people. It is barely talked about even by many of those whom it affects. A tremendous stigma attaches to it. People feel a sense of personal failing, of unworthiness and of isolation—even of resignation. They feel that there is nothing that they can do about it. All of that must change if this nation is to get the best from people and if people are to make the best of themselves.
As though all of that were not enough, there is also the crushing weight of deliberate Government policy to contend with. For the first time in modern British history we have had a Government who, as a central plank of policy, have actively encouraged a fundamental redistribution of wealth from those who do not have to those who have plenty. There are many pretty ways to express that, but the Conservative vision of society, even at its one-nation softest, always demands a broad class of the poor for its philosophy to work. In the past 13 years it has been clear that greater poverty would always accompany the experiment of monetarism, and that the fate of people at the bottom would always be a price well worth paying—provided that it was paid by someone else. We can only guess at the social costs—he personality deformities, the distrust, the desperation, the promotion of criminality, the personal and family stress and the results of that in terms of broken marriages, broken homes and broken lives. Although it is obvious even to advocates of monetarism that the experiment has failed, its consequences will be with many of our people for a long time and perhaps for the whole of their lives.
In many ways the physical costs of poverty are easier to measure and thus easier to combat. We all know the problems of low pay. We know from statistics produced by the Low Pay Unit that the difference between people on the lowest and highest incomes is bigger now than it was in 1886. Many pensioners know that they cannot buy enough for their own needs. People on the state pension alone immediately fall below the poverty line and are eligible for income support, assuming that they claim it. Mothers know that child benefit was frozen, that the Government left it to wither on the vine for three years before they saw the election coming up. The list is a long one. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) described it earlier: maternity grant abolished, earnings-related additions phased out, special needs payments abolished, unemployment benefit cut in real terms, benefit withdrawn from 16 and 17-year-olds, benefit cut for 17 to 25-year-olds.
Under the Conservative Government, the steady and deliberate creation of poverty has been endless—to the point at which one person in six lives below the official poverty line. That is the society that the Government have created and the situation that we shall need to terminate after we come before the electorate in the next few weeks. The electors will decide whether the society created by the Government, who did not even believe in society, must be changed. We certainly intend to change it.
The redistribution of wealth has not been accidental. It has been calculated and callous, it has been paid for by people on or below average incomes, and it represents the most massive attempt at social engineering in this country this century.
In the brief time that remains to me I shall outline one or two measures that we intend to take after 7 May. We shall have plenty of chances in the months and years ahead to right the wrongs of the Conservative Government. We shall start by implementing Labour's two pre-funded commitments. We shall immediately increase the pension for the single person by £5 and for the married couple by £8. Thereafter, we shall link increases in pensions to increases in earnings—the link that was so callously broken by the Conservatives in 1980. Ten million pensioners—[Interruption.] This is the bit that the


Conservatives do not like. Ten million pensioners—not the top I per cent., not the people on£70,000 per year—will benefit from Labour's proposals.
We shall restore child benefit to the value that it had in 1987, making it £9.95 for every child, thereby ending the distinction between children in a family which means that some get more than others. That was a scandalous separation. This too will benefit not a handful of people on top tax rates but 7 million families.
After 7 May, those who have been abused by the Government will start to find just a little of what they have lost being returned to them. It says a great deal about our values that we place pensioners and mothers and children at the very top of our agenda—even above many other vital priorities. It says a great deal about our values and principles that for their sake we will endure the lies and misrepresentations about our tax policy which is necessary to pay for these people's security and peace of mind.

Mr.Newton: rose—

Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman will only take up his colleague's time, but I am pleased to giveway.

Mr. Newton: Before the hon. Gentleman goes too much further with his rhetoric, does he realise that about £1 billion of the money to which he has just referred will go to those in the top half of income distribution?

Mr. Allen: The Secretary of State should enjoy his last few weeks in office and not try to give us lectures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We shall get there in good time. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to lecture us on redistribution. As the Treasury's man in the Department of Social Security, he has presided over the transfer of£31 billion from pensioners' pockets to causes that the Government believe in. We will take no lectures from him about that.
As resources permit, we shall introduce other measures to eliminate the list of poverty-creating Conservative measures. In addition to steps to alleviate direct poverty, we shall build pathways out of poverty across the whole range of Departments, including decent standards of training, better protection against discrimination, special attention to the needs of people with disabilities, improved statutory maternity protection, investment in child care facilities, and a vigorous campaign against the cheap "Arthur Daley" employers, spearheaded by the national minimum wage of £130 per week. It is clear from the reception of our plans by Members on the Government Benches that the policies are in place: in 14 weeks' time, so will be the people who will carry them out.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): We have been treated for the past few minutes to what I can only describe as Labour's "dodgers' charter". The remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) contained not one reply to the questions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about Labour's pledges and Labour's financing of the false manifesto of ideas that they claim represents their policy on social security.
I shall come to those because we have a proud track record in social security. Anybody who can stand at this Dispatch Box and talk of a budget of more than £60,000 million as our expenditure pledges on social security can point to real policies, serving real people, with real benefit, and giving real hope to those who need our social security system. To hear the hon. Member for Nottingham, North talk about child benefit in a year when we have announced three increases in child benefit beggars description.
I remind the hon. Member that I said to him in Committee, when he led the charge by recommending that he and his hon. Friends vote against our regulations on income support, that it was his party which voted against the increase in child benefit in October reaching all children in the country; it was his party which voted against our proposals to enable family credit to reach up to 65,000 additional people; it was his party that voted against our proposals to extend the carer premium—all of that from the party that says it cares. It is on the record. Hon. Members know the people they voted against—yet they have the audacity to stand here today and tell us that their priority is the children.
Labour Members have tried to give us some lessons about our taxation policy. I will put one particular figure to the House.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Where is the poll tax?

Mr. Jack: It is in the pockets of Labour Members who will not pay.
Since we brought in our reductions in higher rate taxes which so disappoint the party opposite, the proportion of Inland Revenue income from that group has risen to more than a third of total tax take. The Opposition have not learnt the simple lesson—reduce the price and increase the tax revenue—that enables us to increase our income and our spending on social security. It is a very simple point.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put a number of questions to the hon. Member for Oldham, West today. I should not like to be in the hon. Gentleman's shoes as he sits by his telephone in Oldham this weekend waiting for his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to ring and ask about the latest list of so-called pledges. I will give him an opportunity, because I am a fair person. In his remarks, the hon. Gentleman attacked our proposals and our thoughts on income support levels, he attacked the social fund, and he attacked the payment of half mortgage interest for the first 16 weeks. I invite him now to rise and tell the House what he would do, where the money would come from and when he would implement it. I will give way to him now if he would like to do that.
There is an ominous silence—

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Jack: I did not ask the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.
He had his opportunity, but he did not answer the questions. The hon. Member for Oldham, West failed to answer, so we know that, like all the other so-called pledges, his proposals are the confetti of persuasion, sprinkled with gay abandon around the meeting halls of the country in the hope of getting people to believe that


Labour is the party of social security. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is playing fast and loose with the public's expectations and they will find him out.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew the attention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the way the national insurance system works. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is still trying to persuade other hon. Members and the public that anyone earning less than £20,280 a year will not be touched by his pickpocket approach to financing. He asked us to provide some examples and I will try to assist him.
The first example is that of a computer salesman on basic pay of some £12,000 a year topped up by, say, £5,000 commission on his monthly salary during the year. He would pay an extra £4.45 per week under Labour's proposals. A process and production engineer, and there are some of those in Oldham, on a gross salary of £19,926, including—the hon. Member will not like this—£6,000 of profit-related pay, would pay an extra £8.55 per week in national insurance payments under Labour's proposals. As for good old overtime, the hon. Member may say that not much overtime is being worked at the moment, but for those who we know will be on overtime when the economic recovery comes a person on £17,492 with overtime payments of £3,734 in any one year would find himself £2.12 per week worse off. Can the hon. Member for Oldham, West stand up now and deny those are real-world examples of people who will be worse off under Labour? I invite him to repudiate that.

Mr. Joe Ashton: rose—

Mr. Jack: I will resist. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has not taken part in the debate and I still have much information to give.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West tried to suggest, in his new-found enthusiasm for Europe, that everything across the channel was absolutely wonderful. He pointed out to us that other people were doing so much better. I suggest that he goes on a little trip and visits his Dutch colleagues in their Government. He will find that the Dutch are discovering that their budget deficit, directly related to their spending on social security, will require to be cut back. They are ending the earnings-related part of their social security just as the hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friends will know, is introducing that feature into his social security plans. Belgium is worried. Germany is facing greater social security problems than Denmark and even France. If the hon. Gentleman will go and see for himself, he will find that other European countries are waking up to this problem.
If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, let him go to the Library of the House and consult the Financial Times of 11 January, in which Mr. Harry Riley says:
Upgrading state pensions would be one of the immediate priorities of a Labour regime in the UK, but all over Europe other governments are searching for ways of reducing their pension commitments.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend before him realised in 1986, as his predecessors had also realised, that there was a need in our social security system to direct money to those who most needed it and to make certain that our social security policies were affordable by the nation. We took that difficult decision, we introduced those reforms and we have modernised the delivery of our social security system

with one of the most modern computer systems in Europe, all to make certain that the right amount of help with benefits such as family credit, our improved premium in income support for the elderly, the 152 per cent. increase in real terms in spending on the disabled, could reach the people it needed to, and above all be afforded by the tax and national insurance payers who have to foot the bill.
It is absolutely clear now that the hon. Member for Oldham, West does not care a jot about those who have to pay and that he has learnt nothing from what has actually happened in Europe.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Jack: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my speech. He has had his say.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made about 56 pledges on social security but he did not guarantee that they would be implemented on day one of an incoming Labour Government. He has engaged in mythology and has not said where the money will come from. The shambles of Labour's tax and national insurance proposals clearly shows that the two so-called firm pledges and the other 50-odd are not worth any of the reams of paper on which they are written.
Much has been said about pensioners. The Opposition do not like it when we proudly boast that pensioners' average total net incomes increased by 34 per cent. between 1979 and 1988. They do not like it when we say that average incomes for occupational pensioners virtually doubled in the same period. They certainly do not like it when they see that the wealth-creating society over which we have presided has ensured that 46 per cent. of pensioners have their own homes.
We know that some pensioners need less help from the social security system than others and we have taken steps to ensure that the money goes to those most in need. In outlining his four case studies, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked whether we could offer some hope to his constituents. I offer a message of hope not only to his constituents but to the many thousands of people who, through family credit, enable the social security system to be a creative organ.
Since family credit was introduced we have made almost 2.5 million successful awards. Some 352,000 people currently benefit from an average payment of about £30 a week. From 1 April we plan to enable more than 65,000 more people to have family credit. That offers real hope and is an example of our innovative, affordable and honest approach to social security, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 246.

Divison No. 53]
 align="right">[7.01 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bellotti, David


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Blair, Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, David


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Boateng, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Bell, Stuart
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


 


 
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy


Carr, Michael
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Cartwright, John
Lambie, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lamond, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clelland, David
Leighton, Ron


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livsey, Richard


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McMaster, Gordon


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Doran, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Enright, Derek
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Murphy, Paul


Galbraith, Sam
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Primarolo, Dawn


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Graham, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Robertson, George


Hain, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rogers, Allan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, Jeff


Haynes, Frank
Rooney, Terence


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hinchliffe, David
Ruddock, Joan


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Salmond, Alex


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Short, Clare


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Snape, Peter





Soley, Clive
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Stephen, Nicol
Wilson, Brian


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Gavin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wray, Jimmy


Turner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Vaz, Keith



Walley, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Wareing, Robert N.
Mr. Ken Eastham.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkins, Robert
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gardiner, Sir George


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hannam, Sir John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Sir Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, James


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James 
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David






Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Norris, Steve


Latham, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Lee, John (Pendle)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Page, Richard


Lightbown, David
Paice, James


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Patnick, Irvine


Lord, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Pawsey, James


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Porter, David (Waveney)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Portillo, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Madel, David
Price, Sir David


Malins, Humfrey
Raffan, Keith


Mans, Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Maples, John
Redwood, John


Marland, Paul
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Riddick, Graham


Mates, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Rost, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rowe, Andrew


Miscampbell, Norman
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Moate, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Monro, Sir Hector
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moore, Rt Hon John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Moss, Malcolm
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mudd, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Shersby, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Neubert, Sir Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Soames, Hon Nicholas





Speed, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Speller, Tony
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Thorne, Neil


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Squire, Robin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Stanbrook, Ivor
Viggers, Peter


Steen, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sumberg, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Summerson, Hugo



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House warmly endorses the Government's policies for focusing considerable extra help on the most vulnerable in society; welcomes the further real increases in benefits shortly to take place for many older less well off pensioners and hundreds of thousands of disabled people; notes the Social Security Select Committee's conclusion that real disposable incomes grew by 30 per cent between 1979 and 1988 with increases in real income being seen at all levels of the income scale; believes that policies which provide more choice and greater opportunities are the best way of helping people to create a better life for themselves and their families; and recognises that, if implemented,
 Her Majesty's Opposition's confused tax and spending plans would impoverish the whole nation, increase unemployment and destroy opportunities.

Ravenscraig

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): We now come to the debate on Ravenscraig. Time is limited. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I appeal for short speeches. I should also inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the Government amendment.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the repeated in defiance of guarantees given by the company; calls for British Steel to honour these guarantees and for the failure of British Steel to support and invest in its Scottish plants, culminating in the announcement that Ravenscraig is to close Government to explore with determination every possible means of saving the steel industry in Scotland, including the search for a new owner and the use of new technology; deplores the inadequate response from Ministers to the present crisis; and demands a co-ordinated and determined drive to rebuild the Lanarkshire economy which has been cruelly damaged by the policies of both the Government and British Steel.
This debate is about a great industry and the trouble which has befallen it. Inevitably much of the spotlight will fall on the role of Government. I suspect that the Secretary of State is in difficulty and is embarrassed by his predicament. Well he might be.
At the end of last week, as the right hon. Gentleman may know, I put down a priority written question. It was a simple request for a list of dates of any meetings in the last six months between Ministers in the Scottish Office and British Steel. The list could not be long, and it did not require an extensive diary search. The first effort at a reply was:
I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
Clearly the Secretary of State had no great interest in getting the information on the table. However, he may have had a tactical rethink, because today there crept on to the board a reply. It was the reply which I had expected. In the last six months, the entire contact at ministerial level between British Steel and the Scottish Office boiled down to one meeting on 6 January, after the Government knew that the closure decision had been reached.
According to reports in the Sunday Mail, the Scottish Office knew as early as 20 December that closure was coming on 8 January. It is a serious charge, but I fear that, as Ministers contemplated the grim future, their one thought was how best to survive the fine mess that their own incompetence had created.
So far as I can find out, the Secretary of State did absolutely nothing to influence events. I am strengthened in that conclusion by a letter which the Secretary of State wrote to me on 14 January, in which he told me precisely what happened at the meeting on 6 January. I remind the House that that was the one meeting at ministerial level with British Steel in the last six months. What happened at the meeting was that he
pressed Sir Robert very hard indeed to make public British Steel's assessment of market conditions".
Faced with the final blow, with the long history of decline, and with the abdication of duty which has marked their course, the Government finally got into the presence of top management of British Steel, merely to press Sir Robert to make public the market assessment which had made him decide on closure. That is a fit comment on the total lack of action and the lack of fight shown by the Scottish Office over the years.
That is typical of the hands-off, do-nothing approach which has been the hallmark of the Government. Successive Secretaries of State have been licensed to protest carefully packaged concern for Scottish consumption only. The one condition laid down was that no action was to follow and no real pressure was to be mounted on British Steel.

Mr. John Marshall: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what action he would take? When the Labour party refers in the motion to
every possible means of saving the steel industry in Scotland, including the search for a new owner",
does that mean that he would propose the nationalisation of Ravenscraig?

Mr. Dewar: I genuinely regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman. As he well knows, that will be the burden of the main part of my speech. He has an important role as a substitute Scot on this occasion. I hope that he will stay, listen and learn.
Suspicion of the Government's plans and of their attitude became a certainty when the Department of Trade and Industry finally blew their cover. Perhaps I do not recognise an unsuspected luminary, but I do not think that there is a representative of the DTI here. I remind the House that the DTI is supposed to be the lead Department in this business. That absence is therefore the height of discourtesy.[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) likes to run everything, but so far as I know, he is not yet running the Department of Trade and Industry. He may be omni competent in the Scottish Office but, so far as I know, he has not yet got beyond the Scottish Office.
When we saw the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), he was disastrously frank. I recall it because it made such an impression on me. He said that he was doing nothing to help, because the Scottish Office had not asked him to do anything. The harsh truth is that there has been no real attempt to derail British Steel's plans. The search has always been for a face-saving formula, never for a solution.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman would nationalise the industry.

Mr. Dewar: I shall deal later with the hon. Gentleman's point.
What can now be done? There has been a long campaign to try to persuade British Steel to consider offers for the Ravenscraig plant. British Steel now says that it will do so, but I fear, because one has to face reality, that it has probably agreed to consider offers because it is confident that offers will not be forthcoming. The tragedy is that, when there was an opportunity to find a buyer, it was fiercely obstructed by British Steel. The Secretary of State for Scotland lamented that fact before the Select Committee but, as far as I can determine, he did nothing to unblock the logjam. The option of a new owner should be kept on the agenda for as long as possible.
The possibility of new technology must also be examined urgently. It was identified as a possibility—not, I admit, as a strong possibility—in the Arthur D. Little


report. I know that it is still being investigated by Scottish Enterprise. Many of those who have followed the argument will be familiar with the innovative proposal that has been put forward. It contemplates the linking of thin slab casting to traditional steelmaking techniques. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), showing more energy and determination than any Minister, is going to Indiana in the next week or so to look at one of the plants where thin slab casting is in operation. I do not pretend that it is an easy option, but it must be pursued to find out whether there is any possible way forward.
Dalzell is still producing plate. As everyone connected with the plant knows, the Labour party has always maintained that there is a case for investment there, and it has consistently challenged the single plate mill strategy. It is not in the best interests of the industry. In our view, it was always likely to be bad news for Dalzell. Sadly, that was almost borne out.
Circumstances have changed. The recession has undermined the plan for a new plate mill on Teesside. The Government should be pressing for the modernisation of Dalzell, including the installation of accelerated cooling. It still remains a low-cost option. In hard times, it must be attractive to British Steel.
There are no short cuts, however. This is a time for realism. I want to make it clear, as I have done in the past, to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that we do not believe that nationalisation is the answer in this case. If I believed that it was, I should be arguing for it.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No.

Mr. Brown: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman will not give way.

Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman is expressing surprise at what I have just said, it shows that he is abysmally ignorant of the debate.

Mr.Oppenheim: rose—

Mr.Brown: rose—

Mr. Dewar: Let me again make the point that we do not believe that in the current circumstances nationalisation is an option or a way out for British Steel. If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) can understand and digest that statement, we can come back to it.

Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No. I believe that nationalisation is no more than a slogan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in these circumstances. It is a doubtful luxury, available only to a party with no expectation of gaining power. I say that honestly. It is irresponsible to consider nationalising the industry; it would hold out hope where none exists. The arguments do not stand up. I repeat that, if I thought they did, I should argue for nationalisation. It is not a matter

of dogma; it is a matter of doing what is right for the steel industry and for the people of Lanarkshire who have taken such a pounding.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No.

Mr.Oppenheim: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Dewar: The nationalists want Ravenscraig to operate—hon. Members will correct me when they speak if they believe that I have got the detail wrong—on two blast furnaces, tied to the Dalzell plate production, with a pipe mill on an unnamed Motherwell site. The problem is the market.
Dalzell, expanded to 1 million tonnes—two or three times current output—could survive only on the assumption that British Steel was not competing in the market. Plans for a new plant at Teesside would have to be abandoned. Plate production at Scunthorpe would have to be closed, together with the welded pipe mill facilities at Hartlepool. Ironically, the whole scheme would depend for its viability on British Steel's acquiescence.
There is no escape in myth-making about the North sea market. Every authoritative commentary tells the same story. Structural steel, tubes and plates for the North sea are not required in sufficient quantities to breathe life into the SNP headlines. All the signs are that the market will fall sharply over the next few years. It is—to use a perhaps unhappy phrase—no more than a nationalist pipe dream.
This is not a plan to rescue Ravenscraig. It would be left as a slab producer, in effect tied to one outlet. If it runs on one blast furnace and produces 1 million tonnes, the cost base will be wrong. If it loads effectively at 2 million tonnes, there will be a surplus for which there is no demand. The European hurdle on competition policy would be formidable. An operating subsidy would simply not be available.
I say all that with no pleasure, but I do so because I am not prepared to be dishonest and go down a road that I do not believe is open. The SNP claimed initially that its target was the restoration of Ravenscraig, complete with a hot mill, cold reduction plant, relined blast furnaces and much work done to such facilities as the coke ovens.
In order to discredit the pointed attack, on grounds of cost, by the Ravenscraig stewards, the SNP has been reduced to confusing market capitalisation with British Steel's asset value—as it does in the most blatant way in this pamphlet that I am holding. It is nonsense to pretend that the share capitalisation of the company is relevant to the argument in favour of putting plant on the ground. It is a deliberate attempt to falsify the argument, and suggests a certain desperation. The back-up has been to dispute the integrity of the stewards whom they were once proud to praise and who are universally seen as having fought a sustained and courageous campaign in defence of the steel industry.
The SNP once did a lot of running in and out on Scottish industrial matters, including nationalisation. I remember when the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry was on the agenda. SNP Members sat in the Chamber tearing up telegrams from the work force on the grounds that they did not believe in that particular form. The scheme that has now been produced has changed shape and content several times.
It is worth remembering that there is no provision for this adventure in the ingenious sums cobbled together by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to form his so-called Scottish Budget. The scheme has only one essential virtue for the nationalists: it gives them something to say.
The debate takes place on the day that The Sun has declared itself the house journal of the SNP. I fear, although I may be a little over-confident, that that will turn out to be something of an embarrassment to the party. In the context of this debate, the party might care to remember that, on 9 January, The Sun considered the future of the steel industry and claimed that that particularly misbegotten group of men, the socialists, could
only throw money at problems.
It went on to pronounce:
Sure, 12 hundred jobs could be saved at Ravenscraig. But in the end the price would be the loss of ten times as many jobs elsewhere.
The Sun's principal columnist happily contributed the thought.
Ravenscraig should have been shut down years ago.
All that I can say about The Sun and the company that it is now keeping is that, if it is a conversion, it is not one based upon principled conviction. I predict that the future of that misalliance will be private grief for the SNP.
We must look to the future. There is much that must be done to rebuild and strengthen the Lanarkshire economy. Although I can only sketch what needs to be done, I shall try to state what I believe are the most important points. The sites must be dealt with and reclaimed. It is no use the Government paying lip service to the principle that the polluter pays when the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 13 January, as though it was good news, that British Steel would clear the Ravenscraig site
down to ground level and … leave it in a tidy condition".—[Official Report, 13 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 672.]
The Government must not be allowed to cover their retreat with a handful of grass seed.
I believe that the enterprise zone was scrambled into the frame only when the closure announcement loomed. The Sunday Mail reported that the Scottish Office had indeed been pushing for that, and that there would be £100 million of investment, but that has now been reduced to £50 million.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I shall correct that mistake from the hon. Gentleman now, but I shall deal with some of the others later. That is entirely and absolutely without foundation

Mr. Dewar: Of course I take the Secretary of State's word for that. It was not scrambled quickly into the frame when the announcement of the closure was known. However, I understand from a press release from Sir Leon Brittan's office, which reached me today, that a formal application under article 93.3 of the treaty was launched only today. That does not suggest that there has been a great deal of forethought or planning.
I am conscious of the difficulties that may arise. I understand the problem over the Mossend freight village and terminal. There are always difficulties over the boundaries of enterprise zones. However, I think that, on balance, that is an important part of the package, and something on which we expect the Secretary of State to

deliver. The package that the Government have put together lacks coherence and shape. It is a case of anything and everything being thrown together. Significant sums would have been available in any event. I refer to Lanarkshire development agency's and East Kilbride development corporation's contributions.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to listen to the local community and that he will create some sort of forum in which the ideas of the local community can be taken into account and considered in a wider way than has been possible up to now. It is important that emphasis be placed on infrastructure improvements, and especially on the M74 and M8 link.
Lanarkshire does not want a series of reports on infrastructure questions—a buck-passing exercise to a regional council that does not have the finance. We must capitalise and have a targeted strategy to encourage development around the freight terminal and the new electrified line linking Motherwell to Glasgow and Edinburgh. I hope that that will be tackled with more energy than hitherto.
There must be a real drive to improve training and to encourage innovation. The Government should consider the possibility of establishing a central institution of Lanarkshire to give a new impetus to the excellent work that is carried out by the existing colleges there. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) will have a word or two to say about training towards the end of the debate. The experience and expertise of East Kilbride development corporation's industrial team should be kept together.
The Labour party has argued for a Scottish innovation centre. There are many examples of similar successful ventures in Europe, some of which have an almost international reputation, such as the Steinhers Foundation in Baden-Württemberg. Such a venture would give a boost to the local economy and allow companies to plug into a Europewide network of technology transfer so that even the smallest firms would have access to the best of the world's technologies and to the expertise that would allow them to put that technology to work. It would offer positive support on production methods and marketing. It should be based in Lanarkshire, complementing the work already carried out at the National Engineering Laboratory in East Kilbride.
I finish—

Mr. Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Dewar: No.

Mr.Oppenheim: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr.Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Dewar: No. I appreciate—

Mr. Oppenheim: What a pathetic performance.

Mr. Dewar: I should like to conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am conscious of the fact that, although very few Conservative Members will seek to participate in the debate—and certainly very few from Scotland—many hon. Members have constituency interests and want to participate.
There can be no promises of an overnight transformation. The Government's dereliction of duty has


contributed to a major crisis. I refer to their failure to challenge British Steel at a time when such a challenge would have had an impact, and to the ravages of a recession that was made, at least in part, in Downing street.
We argued for a DTI task force, and found no sign of life. We pushed for an export drive, but got no reaction. We looked for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but got no co-operation. There has been no attempt to force British Steel to honour its guarantees at a time when the market was more optimistic and there was the possibility of new owners.
The Secretary of State will claim that everything possible is being done that could be done, but that is simply not true. Promises and expressions of concern there are in plenty, but what is missing is the commitment and determination to fight unemployment and industrial decline. We have had soothing words from the Secretary of State. Suggestions that unemployment in Lanarkshire is not as bad as it might be add insult to injury. A male unemployment rate of 16 per cent. is no justification for the kind of complacency that we have seen in recent months. There has been one meeting—after the event—with British Steel in six months.
The charge remains—not that Ministers have failed, but that they have never really tried. Their record of inactivity strips them of all credibility. The Secretary of State can hardly complain if he and his colleagues are not trusted by the people of Lanarkshire and of Scotland. This Government should go, and surely will, whether it he in April or May. There will he no reprieve—and neither should there be.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr.Ianang): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
commends the Government's response to the announcement by British Steel of its decision to close Ravenscraig; acknowledges the extensive and effective nature of the measures already being undertaken by the Government as part of its continuing commitment to improve the economy and infrastructure in Lanarkshire, in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, the Lanarkshire Development Agency, and a range of other public and private bodies; welcomes the Government's commitment of some £120 million since the beginning of March 1991 for economic development and training in Lanarkshire; and supports the proposal by Her Majesty's Government that an enterprise zone be established in North Lanarkshire.
The kindest thing that could be said about the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is that he must have been fazed and thrown by the extraordinarily good news of the winning of the contract for three frigates by Yarrow in his constituency. What a pity that he did not find it possible even to express his appreciation for that. Instead, he spoke in a wholly sniping, dull and negative way to a motion that is wholly negative. He did a considerable discourtesy to the House in failing to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), formerly the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, who has direct and close experience of the steel industry. My hon. Friend said that he was surprised by that. Of course he was, because the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) gave a firm commitment to the House—admittedly four years ago,

which is probably a long time in the life of the Labour party. He said that Opposition Members "strongly believe"—not just "believe"—that
the steel industry is most appropriately owned in a form of public ownership."—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 184.]
Therefore, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes read the Opposition's motion, which states:
That this House … calls … for the Government to explore with determination every possible means of saving the steel industry in Scotland",
he clearly thought that "every possible means" would include nationalisation. However, it turns out that that phrase not only does not include nationalisation but that nationalisation is "no more than a slogan".

Mr. Michael Brown: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may recall that I served on Standing Committee D in the 1987–88 Session. Having listened on many occasions to the then Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), as well as to the hon. Member for Dagenham, I can confirm that we heard a commitment to renationalise the steel industry at virtually every Standing Committee sitting. As a member of that Standing Committee, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend is correct.

Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and hope that there will be time in the debate for the House to benefit from his experience.
The tone of the Opposition's motion is without doubt interventionist, dirigiste, and very much in the mould of the old Labour party, calling
for the Government to explore with determination every possible means of saving the steel industry in Scotland".
Indeed,
it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs. What the steel industry needs is a more vibrant domestic market, specially in the manufacturing sector and a chance therefore to make even further increases in their productivity and be more competitive in difficult international markets.
The industry does not need
some civil servant or minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do".
That is what I believe. It is also what the Leader of the Opposition believes. Those were not my words but his words from today's Financial Times. He said:
it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs … some civil servant or Minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do.
That quotation clearly puts the House in great difficulty. It discredits and disqualifies about 90 per cent. of what the hon. Member for Garscadden just said. But the position becomes more confusing. The interventionist motion tabled today calling
for the Government to explore with determination every possible means of saving the steel industry
bears the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Yet the article appeared in the Financial Times today with a quotation in inverted commas which gives the directly opposite view. Which is the view of the Leader of the Opposition—let alone that of the Labour party?

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State realise that this fourth form debating stuff is neither funny nor smart and impresses no one back in Scotland? Will he concentrate on what the Government can do in their dying moments for the steel industry in Scotland and for the people of Motherwell?

Mr. Lang: I just wish that someone on the Opposition Benches could help us. Perhaps next week at Luigi's the Leader of the Opposition will manage to extricate himself from the spaghetti in which he is entangled.

Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State has been adamant that Government intervention and attempts to influence these matters are wrong as a matter of principle. Does he remember when his immediate predecessor as Secretary of State for Scotland said that the decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig was wrong and should be reviewed and reversed, and that his policy was to achieve that? Did the right hon. Gentleman support that?

Mr. Lang: Of course I did. I should have liked to see it happen. However, I do not believe in intervening in the steel industry to do it; nor do I believe that the Labour party believes in that. Certainly, its leader does not believe in it. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a Welsh interest to protect. Perhaps it is asking too much to expect him to rise above the Welsh interest and look to the Scottish, let alone the United Kingdom, interest.
The Labour party must be in a great shambles when we hear that nationalisation is no more than a slogan and that the entire history of the Labour party's commitment to nationalisation not only of the steel industry but across the board is abandoned. The Leader of the Opposition says:
it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs … some civil servant or Minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do.
I am grateful to the Labour party for calling the debate tonight, even though it is a half-day debate on a Thursday, so that we could obtain that revelation about its policy on nationalisation.
I want to make a little progress on the positive measures that the Government are taking to meet the difficulties that Lanarkshire faces. It is important that we recognise the position as it has developed. When we came to office in 1979 we found an industry which was over-manned, under-invested, uncompetitive and riven with industrial dispute. Funds were being poured into it by the taxpayer at the rate of £100 million a month at today's prices. That not only failed to solve the steel industry's problems but damaged the interests of the taxpayer, other industry and the economy in general.
Some contraction was inevitable with the industry in such a state. It would not be particularly rewarding to reflect on how or why the Ravenscraig problems developed—whether the cause was the original decision of the Conservative Government to encourage the industry to locate the mill at Ravenscraig, the decision to split the effort between Scotland and Wales, the location 40 miles from the sea, the separation from the cold strip mill or the loss of Linwood. At Linwood industrial disputes eventually destroyed one of the major markets for its product, just as they destroyed many of the shipyards on the upper Clyde. We could reflect on whether nationalisation destroyed the old Scottish companies by moving their control to London and creating such a mess that it was impossible to reprivatise them on a Scottish basis.
The Labour party owes it to the House to tell us even now what it would do. We have heard what it would not do, but it must tell us what it would do if it were to win the election. It may find itself in office with four or five months

to go. If it does, it will owe it to the people of Scotland to tell them what it will do. We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Garscadden.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Secretary of State telling the people of Scotland that they will need to wait almost 10 years, as the people of Linwood had to wait, to see anything come into that massive empty factory space? Surely the Secretary of State has more to offer the people in Lanarkshire than he offered the people of enfrewshire—nothing.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a well-timed intervention which enables me to describe the initiatives which we are taking, have taken and will continue to take.

Mr. Oppenheim: Surely it would be within the power of the Opposition spokesman, should he ever become Secretary of State for Scotland, to take powers to insist that Ravenscraig should remain open. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Garscadden is so unwilling to make that pledge?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish that I knew. Some two and a quarter hours of the debate remain and I hope that the Labour party will make its position clear as the debate advances.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that I entirely share the general disappointment and dismay at the effect of the loss of jobs in Lanarkshire as a result of the closure of Ravenscraig. But what matters is action, not words, and it is action that the Government have been taking.

Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend knows that I have many thousands of constituents who have brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers who live in the Motherwell area and are involved with Ravenscraig. He will also be aware of the massive assistance that the Government granted to my constituency by creating the enterprise zone, by granting assisted area status, by a massive infusion of derelict land grants and of money for new roads and infrastructure, through European grants. They made available many millions of pounds for retraining and so on. My constituents in Corby would like to hear from my right hon. Friend that the same range of incentives will be made available to Motherwell.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, speaks with direct and substantial personal experience of the beneficial effects of the Government's measures. He knows the benefits that will flow from the Government's measures in Lanarkshire.
We are making good progress in providing assistance for Lanarkshire. Our plans are going forward in a businesslike and sensible way. As soon as we heard that the closure of Ravenscraig was to be announced, we accelerated the consideration, already well advanced, of the case for an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire. The Government quickly concluded that the case for such a zone was strong. I announced our intention to seek EC approval for the establishment of the zone on the day that the closure was announced.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) challenged the Prime Minister. He said that there was good information that the Prime Minister knew about the


closure of Ravenscraig 14 days before the announcement. How many days before the announcement was the Secretary of State told about the closure?

Mr. Lang: I will not answer for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I heard about the closure on 20 December. I made that clear as soon as the announcement took place. There is no great mystery about that.

Mr. Gordon Brown: What did the Secretary of State do about it?

Mr. Lang: I advanced consideration of our preparation of our application for enterprise zone status and I persuaded my Government colleagues that that was a desirable step forward. On the day of the announcement I was able to write to Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner, to alert him to the fact that the United Kingdom Government would seek the Commission's agreement to the establishment of such a zone.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr.Lang: No, if the hon. Lady will allow me, I must make progress. I will give way to her later.

Mrs. Ewing: My point is about the enterprise zone.

Mr. Lang: Let me first say what I have to say about the enterprise zone. I will then give way to the hon. Lady if she still feels that it is necessary.
I spoke to Commissioner Brittan yesterday and I am pleased to confirm that formal notification of the Government's case for an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire was made to the Secretary-General of the European Commission this morning. I know that the Labour party does not understand much about enterprise zones—after all, they were created by the Government—but they involve an enormous amount of preparation. That preparation has been carried out extremely thoroughly. When asked yesterday whether he thought that he had been informed of our intention at an adequate time, Commissioner Brittan replied that he considered it "pretty prompt". He added:
Time spent in preparing well prepared applications is not prevarication or time wasted … Time spent now in amassing detail could save time in the long run.

Mrs. Ewing: Although I do not wish to interfere in the argument about which of the Front-Bench spokesmen could more speedily achieve an enterprise zone, I believe that they should be fighting for the retention and expansion of the Scottish steel industry. Is it true that the condition that there will be no steel-making capacity in Lanarkshire will be attached to enterprise zone status?

Mr.Lang: That is the first time that I have heard the suggestion. It is highly unlikely. However, it is for the Commission to pursue and develop any conditions that it thinks appropriate.
I believe that our case is strong and that the zone will be of great help to north Lanarkshire, attracting many thousands of new jobs in a range of companies, thus broadening Lanarkshire's economic base.
I can also announce that I have approved the commissioning by Lanarkshire development agency of a consultancy study of the long-term economic development

opportunities, to follow on from the immediate work in hand arising from the Lanarkshire working group's report.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's courtesy in giving way. I sincerely hope for the sake of the people of north Lanarkshire that the enterprise zone which is to be created there is given far more financial and other support by the Government than was the case with the Inverclyde enterprise zone. That so-called enterprise zone has proved to be a bitter disappointment and failure for thousands of my constituents who are unemployed.

Mr. Lang: While the Inverclyde enterprise zone has not yet made a substantial breakthrough because of the difficult circumstances in which it operates, it substantially enhances the opportunity to bring employment to Inverclyde. The hon. Gentleman was keen enough for it to be established. The Government were glad to he able to secure that for him and I should have thought that it was in our interests for both of us to work together to make it a success.
The resources and investment by Government in an enterprise zone take the form of income forgone, in terms of capital allowances, exemption from rates and other benefits. The estimated costs to the Exchequer from the enterprise zone in Lanarkshire are about £50.5 million, which is expected to trigger about £250 million of private sector investment and to create a substantial number of jobs.

Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the Secretary of State would write to me, as I am interested in his remarks. The basis upon which that figure has been arrived at means that he must be able to calculate the revenue loss, which presumably means that he has made assumptions about the size and occupation of the zone. Would he be prepared to put those calculations in the Library?

Mr. Lang: I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman whatever information is available to the Government, but when one sets up an enterprise zone, one does not know the nature of the employment which will come into different parts of it. The zone is based on six areas, which add up to almost 500 acres. The Government's experience and estimates have been carefully negotiated and calculated as accurately as possible, and they are based on our experience in other enterprise zones and upon expected take-up of opportunities there.
Today I wrote to Sir Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, to say once again that he should release sufficient evidence about the world domestic market situation in the steel industry and about Ravenscraig's costs and other circumstances to shed light on the factors which led the British Steel board to take its decision.
I pressed British Steel to help deal with decontamination of the Ravenscraig site and its restoration to industrial or other use by granting Lanarkshire development agency immediate access to site records and by funding and other support for a site assessment to gauge which parts of the site could be quickly redeveloped and which need special or prolonged remedial treatment.
I have further suggested that British Steel might wish to enter into early discussions with the public agencies involved about the future of buildings on the site and


about future site ownership and development, aimed at making the most of potential public and private sector contributions.
I pressed Sir Robert to say by how much the funding of the British steel industry will increase to take account of 1,200 additional job losses since its £10 million programme was announced in north Lanarkshire last June. I emphasised the importance of training measures, as they would give much valued flexibility in tailoring training and retraining to meet likely future needs.
During the past decade, in a sustained and systematic way, the Government have developed a programme to help Lanarkshire. The House will be familiar with the Motherwell project, which has run for about eight years, in which the Scottish Development Agency had invested about £56 million by 1987. That project is estimated to have created or saved about 4,000 jobs. The partnership and commitment to Motherwell established by the project is being maintained through the Motherwell enterprise partnership, led by Motherwell Enterprise Development Co., which had a budget of £930,000 last year.
There is also the Coatbridge project, which ran from 1983 to 1988, in which SDA expenditure totalled £22.8 million—a project judged to have created or safeguarded about 2,500 jobs. A number of enterprise trusts are operating, many initially 20 per cent. funded by the SDA, which now deliver services under contract to the Lanarkshire development agency.
Last year, in response to the developing situation, I set up a working group under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary —my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—to review Lanarkshire's immediate needs and to develop projects. That was an immensely successful initiative, for which I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am grateful also to the many public sector individuals and bodies which came willingly and co-operatively together to develop effectively the sort of plans which are now being implemented—16 early action
projects—

Mr. Adam Ingram: On East Kilbride development corporation—

Mr.Lang: I have not come to East Kilbride development corporation yet. If I have time, I shall do so.
Sixteen early action projects—mostly industrial site developments—were identified and work has already begun upon 13 of them; two more medium-term projects are moving ahead; and five others are subject to feasibility studies.
The remedial measures range across a wide spectrum of commitment in terms of finance and skill. Lanarkshire development agency had a basic budget of almost £3 million last year, to which was added an additional £15 million allocation, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May, and a further —4 million allocation for extra training. Scottish Enterprise was allocated about £5 million for use in Lanarkshire in 199–92. Those resources were used by the SDA largely to develop sites purchased by the SDA in March 1991. Further resources, amounting to about £1 million, were put into employment action and training programmes.
East Kilbride development corporation's capital programme for the year in question was about £26 million.

In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry, under the iron and steel employers re-adaptation benefit scheme for 1991–92, expected to spend about £28 million. The capital allocations to local authorities for factory building were set at £4 million, to enable a response to be made to the needs of the area.

Mr. Ingram: Hon. Members will recognise the importnt role that East Kilbride development corporation has played in the regeneration of the economy of Lanarkshire and Scotland and the role that it will play in the years ahead. Why is the Secretary of State proposing to wind up the development corporation within the next four years?

Mr. Lang: Such is the success of East Kilbride that it has reached a level of maturity where it no longer needs the special commitment of resources—which might be better used in other parts in Lanarkshire—to maintain and continue its development. East Kilbridge development corporation has handled its opportunities extremely well and has succeeded in attracting about one in five of all inward investment cases coming to Scotland. That, too, is for the benefit of Lanarkshire.
Lanarkshire has important advantages—it is well-located, with good communications, and the Government are doing all in their power to ensure that those are improved. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcomed the decision by British Rail to locate its Mossend channel tunnel freight terminal in Lanarkshire. Considerable benefits will flow from that. The Government have also substantially expanded the roads programme to take special account of the needs of Lanarkshire with regard to the M8 and A8 and—most important of all—the improvement of the A74, which is being developed into a motorway.
The Government have a sustained, well considered and broad-ranging commitment to Lanarkshire. We are implementing policies that have proved effective and successful in Brigg and Scunthorpe, Corby and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Lanarkshire has got advantages and we are doing our best to help the people there to capitalise upon them.
Our amendment to the motion describes the
extensive and effective nature of the measures already being undertaken by the Government as part of its continuing commitment to improve the economy and infrastructure in Lanarkshire".
I urge the House to reject the motion and to conceal it from the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition, who signed it. Instead, the House should endorse the words of the right hon. Gentleman which appeared in the Financial Times today, and support the Government's amendment.

8 pm

Dr. Jeremy Bray: For the people of Motherwell, and for Ravenscraig steel workers and their families, this is a sad occasion. They have worked hard and loyally, they have learnt new skills, developed new methods, pioneered new technologies and triumphed over disasters. They have acted intelligently, with foresight, courage and integrity. They have achieved unequalled levels of performance.
Steel is the most dramatic of industries, but it is not an industry for drama. It is an industry for steady, careful, considered judgment, because a worker's life and those of his work mates depend upon what he does. Because the
steel workers have felt, worked and argued their case in


that steady way—not just for our own interests as a steel community, but for the public who invested in the plant, for the customer and for the end consumer—they have seen the direction in which British Steel was taking us since the closure of Gartcosh in 1985, and even before that. It has been a long planned closure and now the workers have been told that British Steel is planning, finally, to close the works in September.
On Second Reading of the British Steel Bill in February 1988 I pointed out the likelihood that the privatisation of British Steel as a monopoly producer in the United Kingdom would lead to the closure of Ravenscraig, as British Steel exerted its unfettered monopolistic power to restrict capacity. I argued how a competitive solution, with the separate privatisation of Ravenscraig, Shotton and Dalzell, would give Ravenscraig a chance to demonstrate its market strength. But the Government would not listen. I said:
If Ravenscraig is to be killed, it will die with dignity. But the House will understand the politically explosive effects in Scotland if our largest fully competitive industrial unit were closed with the Government having denied the test of the market, in which they believe".—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 215.]
That effect will soon show in the ballot box.
First, is there any possibility of a phoenix operation now that British Steel is pulling out? The chances are slim, but they must be pursued until all reasonable possibilities are exhausted. The search must be taken up again for a steel business elsewhere in the world that has the finishing mills which British Steel has stripped from Ravenscraig. It could be supplied with high quality slabs from Ravenscraig at lower cost than by building itself a new modern steel-making plant. Scottish Enterprise must explore all possibilities. It will not be easy, and the chances of success are not high in view of the excess slab capacity elsewhere in Europe seeking distress sales.
I put the different proposition of using Ravenscraig as a demonstration plant for introducing thin slab casting into the integrated steelwork BOS—basic oxygen steel—route. Arthur D. Little endorsed it as the other option worth exploring. It would be a world first, with a new product and a new process. The Secretary of State and the Government have never understood that the last thing that British Steel and other conventional steel producers want is a new process which will undercut their costs and make their plants obsolete, so it has been a mini-mill in NUCOR in the United States that has pioneered the new thin slab technology. Without the research and development resources of a big steel company, there are still surface quality and other problems that need ironing out before the product can sell as top quality strip. There is no problem about installing it on a BOS plant; the quality problems will be solved there. There were similar problems with thick slab casting when it was introduced and it was Ravenscraig that pioneered that and strip products in this country. In some respects thin slab strip has inherently superior qualities, with its finer grain from more rapid cooling.
NUCOR and its plant builder, the German firm, Schloemann Siemag, is ready to assist in the examination of possibilities at Ravenscraig. I have suggested that the most likely way forward would be with a consortium of at least three steel producers interested in a full-scale demonstration of the process on a BOS plant. The process is long past the pilot plant stage. Because of the reluctance of British Steel and perhaps other European steel

companies to encourage a new process in their own market, the first member of the consortium might have to be a non-European steel company. Once it was apparent that the demonstration was likely to go ahead, European steel companies and, I suspect, British Steel—I have told it so—might have second thoughts. They might like to look at what is happening with the Japanese car plants.
There is precious little time to explore the options. I am going to NUCOR on 5 February to discuss the possibilities with the chairman, Mr. Kenneth Iverson. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing an executive from Scottish Enterprise to come to NUCOR with me. British Steel has told me that its offer to sell the Ravenscraig plant will expire in September when it closes the plant. It has pointed out that the one remaining blast furnace will then be allowed to cool, which normally results in the collapse of the brick lining, making the furnace inoperable until it has been re-built at a cost of £50 million. The coke ovens would also collapse, and their replacement would cost £150 million. To continue operating Ravenscraig from September, it would have to use the existing thick slab concast, so only slab sales would be possible and that faces the difficulty of the present depressed state of the steel market.
However, the blast furnace lining and the coke ovens are coming to the end of their useful life—that has been a careful part of British Steel planning—so little would be lost if there was a break in production while a new thin slab plant was built, but it means that a new operator would have to spend at least £250 million putting the steel making end in working order. People in Motherwell would have no wish to keep a derelict steel plant lying around. They are not interested in a Mickey Mouse gimmick to keep the plant stumbling along for a year or two. They would also not wish the liability for the costs of the reclamation of the steel sites to fall on a shell company with no resources, which would not be able to meet the costs. There is therefore no interest in keeping British Steel waiting indefinitely against the contingency of a buyer turning up at some indefinite time in the future.
Conversely, it would not be in British Steel's interest to be over-hasty in the demolition of Ravenscraig if the effect was to incur the heaviest possible claim for the most expensive kind of reclamation and restoration of the site as a country park. The Government's consultants, appointed by the Lanarkshire development agency on the prompting of the Scottish Office, have estimated that that would cost about £200 million.
My experience of the operating management of British Steel is that, within the limits of their job, they are reasonable men acting in a reasonable way, and I am sure that it is in our interests in Motherwell to deal with them as such. I am sorry that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office have not done that. There have been no informal meetings and no serious discussion, and now the Secretary of State has written formally to the chairman and wielded the big stick.
Everyone in Scotland supports the case for the modernisation and extension of the Dalzell works to the limits of its capacity as British Steel's lowest-cost option for the development of plate, and that is not now affected by the closure of Ravenscraig.
The Scottish National party policy for nationalisation as a solution does not add up, as The Glasgow Herald shows in articles today. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will show that clearly, if he


is successful in being called to speak in the debate. Once the election is over, Dalzell workers will be seen to be getting on with keeping their plant the model of efficiency, which is best calculated to win the long life for the plate mill that Motherwell desperately needs.
We must explore all possible avenues for steel, and we are doing so. The Secretary of State is utterly wrong to accuse us of not having specific proposals. We have some of the most specific and practical proposals, and I have the full support of the shadow Secretary of State, of the Leader of the Opposition, of the whole shadow Cabinet and of all my colleagues in Scotland in making these comments. It is therefore utterly preposterous for Conservative Members to think that my hon. Friends and I can be embarrassed on the token issue of nationalisation. We are not in that kind of political debating area. We are dealing with the serious business of industry.

Mr. Lang: I, too, am dealing with the serious matter of industry. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would say which of his leader's policies he supports. He cannot support them both.

Dr. Bray: Just prior to the debate, I was at a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition at which I went over the grounds of our case. He gives us his absolute, full and unqualified support. We must explore all possible avenues for steel. Everyone in Motherwell accepts that our future lies in new jobs, new industries and a new image of Lanarkshire.
The Government's antics have been pathetic. I shall not go into the details of the enterprise zone because, from what the Secretary of State said, it is clear that he has not been informed about the way in which matters have been developed and formulated.
The Secretary of State did not even mention the new link that is needed between the M74 and the M8, running through the Ravenscraig site, a matter which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked by the Prime Minister to investigate when we met the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman failed to do that to the extent of writing to me afterwards, saying that it was a matter for Strathclyde regional council.
We need the image-changing impact of a new Motherwell Parkway mainline station on that new motorway link and on the electrified Glasgow-Edinburgh mainline, with its InterCity services. We need that opening up of the steel sites as a new central Scotland business site linked to the overcrowded centres of Edinburgh and Glasgow. We need a new role for Motherwell and Bell colleges in providing vital new skills. We need the core developments that will launch new growth, with the encouragement and involvement of the private sector, which the Government have been totally inept in seeking.
We get none of that. We get, instead—this is typical—a cut in the housing capital allocation for Motherwell district council from the £25 million in the five-year capital programme to an appalling £15 million. What is the Secretary of State up to? Is he counting on the depopulation of Motherwell?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is making an incorrect claim because he is comparing the provisional allocation figure for 1992–93 with the final allocation for 1991–92. One must compare like with like. The council's housing

revenue account gross provisional allocation for 1992–93 totals £14.767 million. When expressed on a per house basis, far from being a decrease it represents an increase to £451 per council house.

Dr. Bray: I will not pursue that matter with the right hon. Gentleman at this stage. I will follow it up in writing.
Motherwell people hesitate to put to the Secretary of State any of the lively suggestions now being made because he simply strangles them at birth. He has made a total shambles of the redevelopment of Lanarkshire. Now that he has demonstrated the depth of the Government's incompetence, the people of Motherwell just want to get rid of the Government so that we can get on with building a new life for a viable and worthwhile comunity.

Sir Hector Monro: It is impossible to listen to the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) without appreciating his knowledge and sincerity. I assure him that we feel for him as he obviously feels for his constituents.
Before dealing with the subject of the debate, I must say that, on a day when we have had such wonderful news about Yarrow, it is important to put on record our congratulations to the management, work force and design team there on having produced a contract that was manifestly acceptable to the Government. It is right also to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the part he played in achieving this vital order for the west of Scotland.
I look on this debate about Ravenscraig, sadly, as a lengthy extension of the debates we had on Gartcosh many years ago, when I forecast—at that time I voted against the Government—that, if we gave way on Gartcosh, it would be the long-term beginning and end of Ravenscraig. I regret that that has turned out to be the case.
That is why I am annoyed with the directors of British Steel for their action. We are talking of a great industry, and British Steel has a responsibility far wider than a normal public company with a board of directors responsible to its shareholders: it has a responsibility to the nation. It is British Steel, not Motherwell steel, Llanwern steel or Shotton steel. As British Steel, it has a responsibility to its work force, epitomised so wonderfully by Tommy Brennan over many years—I was delighted to see him mentioned in Her Majesty's new year's honours list.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman said that British Steel was responsible to its work force. He will be aware that British Steel negotiated an extraordinary package of redundancy money, representing two years' pay for workers made redundant at Ravenscraig—double the amount paid in the strip or general steel division. If the plant had stayed open until 1994, British Steel would have had to pay wages for two years and, on top of that, redundancy money. So, in effect, the company has stolen, on average, £30,000 from every Ravenscraig worker.

Sir Hector Monro: I do not profess to be a great expert on the ins and outs of British Steel and its relationship with its work force. I want to talk about the future, and the direction in which we may have to go.
I am extremely disappointed with Sir Robert Scholey and his fellow directors, who had an equal share in the decision. They manifestly failed to produce the financial


case. If they have such a case, let them publish it so that we may see the figures on which they based their decision. I also hope that they may in the not-too-distant future give some guarantee about investment in the Dalzell plate mill, so that there can at least be some confidence over the future of that plant.
I hope that the directors also appreciate the knock-on effect of their decision on local industry and concerns further afield. I also hope that there may be some way to save part of the plant, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South recommended. But if, reluctantly—and, I must say, with some anger—we must accept the British Steel decision, let us concentrate on the future and consider how we can turn an area of desperate trouble into a thriving economic region. In that context, I want to see some useful precedents used in the future.
This is not the first time that an area in this country or in America has run into a major economic disaster. We all remember the Tennessee Valley authority's great restoration plan before the war. The present situation, which has been signalled for a considerable time, has many similarities to the cases of Corby, Consett, Shotton, Barrow-in-Furness and perhaps even Cornish tin and some of the Welsh valleys. So we know what can happen in large-scale economic disasters and that we should set about trying to introduce new jobs and industries as soon as possible.
Whether the problem is on a large scale, such as the Ravenscraig closure, or on a small scale such as I faced in Sanquhar and Kirconnel way back in the 1960s when the coal mines closed, we must do everything possible to build advance factories and bring in new industries. Those do not provide a complete answer, but at least they provide jobs and help to make rapid progress.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend set up the Lanarkshire working group, which is now the Lanarkshire development agency, because it has been a great success. He must use every possible form of assistance available to him, whether it is the local enterprise company, Scottish Enterprise, Locate in Scotland or Industry in Scotland. We must look urgently at what each of those agencies can offer and they must be co-ordinated. I hope that they will be co-ordinated in the enterprise zone. That will be the key, as was shown in Corby. I hope that Sir Leon Brittan and Bruce Millan, if their responsibilities overlap, will do all they can to help us to achieve the enterprise zone as quickly as possible.
I was a little worried when my right hon. Friend mentioned—perhaps off the top of his head—500 acres. I should have thought that we would need a much more substantial area. I suspect that the Ravenscraig site measures more than 1,000 acres.

Dr. Bray: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Ravenscraig site is not even included in the enterprise zone.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to have that information. It worries me to an extent because of the future of the site, which I shall discuss in a moment.
I am also glad that the Secretary of State has been able to report success in attracting new industry to the area and that unemployment is now some 9,000 lower than it was four years ago. However, once we have that enterprise zone, it will need funding, leadership, speed and everyone

working together—cross-party, local authorities, planning authorities—at top speed to bring to fruition the advantages of having an enterprise zone.
Geographically, the area is well placed, with motorways, the new Mossend rail depot, the main line, the airport not too far away and, most importantly, the skilled work force. With spirit and determination, there can be great advantages ahead, so that that work force, which must be extremely despondent at British Steel's announcement, can look confidently to the future.
We must also consider quality of life and the environment. That will be partly the responsibility of British Steel. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South expressed his view on that. I am interested that he feels that the Ravenscraig site should not be changed into an environmentally attractive area but should remain a possible steelworks for some time to come. It will be a big operation to bring in all the agencies and authorities if we are to convert a major steel works, with all its contamination and toxic waste problems, into a new environment. We shall need a major new environmental assessment.
It was reported in The Scotsman that the Lanarkshire development agency has called for and received such an assessment and therefore has a basis upon which to work. However, the site could generate both revenue and capital rather than become the liability that some people anticipate. Throughout the process, speed is the watchword. We have no time to waste if the plant is really to close in about six months' time. We must consider the repercussions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which comes into force next year, so that British Steel does not take a hasty decision to avoid responsibilities.
I am glad that it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to co-ordinate all those agencies and the enterprise zone to push people forward with spirit and determination to achieve the new industries and bring new jobs to the area that has been afflicted by British Steel's decision. It can be done if we all approach it constructively. Let us get on with it now.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about comparing this debate with that at the time of Gartcosh. Many people recognise, as the shop stewards did at the time, that the closure of Gartcosh was the beginning of the long road towards the end of the steel industry in Scotland. That is why they marched to London and some members of my party, not least councillor Jim Bannerman, took a prominent part in that march. Some Conservative Members who are still in the House did not exactly cover themselves with glory at that time. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) will confirm that members of the Select Committee sought to investigate the implications of Gartcosh but had some difficulty getting the Committee to agree to do so. We then had to suffer a filibuster from the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) in an attempt to prevent the report from being completed.

Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) should also mention the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who made a gentleman's agreement with me at that time to vote with


the majority of the Committee but reneged on it. The hon. Gentleman sheds crocodile tears now, but he should have stood up and been counted then.

Mr. Bruce: I do not know about that, but the important point is that the problem has a long history and the people have seen it coming.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No; the hon. Gentleman will get his own chance to speak.
The workers at Ravenscraig have been seeking to mobilise opinion for years to try to ensure that the steel industry had a future in Scotland. At the time of Gartcosh, the Conservatives could have done something about it but they tried to deflect a genuine attempt to investigate the implications of that decision. When it came to privatisation, the Secretary of State explained on three or four occasions why the Government did not explore the option put forward by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) or some similar option to create a competitor to British Steel at the time of privatisation. Instead, the Government gave the limp and weak response that they had to suffer from the fact that the industry had been nationalised and, as usual, they tried to blame the previous Government. The reality is that the entire ideology of privatisation has been about privatising monopolies to maximise the price—and to hell with competition policy and the real strategic interests for the future of the industry and the economy.
Once the Government let that opportunity go and we knew that Bob Scholey, with his commitment, was to become chairman of British Steel, Ravenscraig's future was sealed.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. First, it was not a matter of not exploring. Our advisers and the Government explored and reached the conclusion that it was not possible to privatise a separate, viable Scottish industry. Had an attempt been made to do so, it would have disappeared in the present economic circumstances. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that all privatisation is monolithic. He need only look at Scottish Buses or Scottish Electricity.

Mr. Bruce: Those came a little later and certainly the record of the major privatisations is that competition has not been a prime motivation of the Government.
The Secretary of State has chosen his words carefully in terms of the kind of privatisation that is to be explored. Is he seriously suggesting that the only possible future for the steel industry in Britain is as a single monopoly? I find that a rather extraordinary claim from a party that claims to believe in a free enterprise system. He knows that he failed both the people of Scotland and the people of Britain, because his predecessor, while British Steel was still in public ownership, used his power to prevent the closing of Ravenscraig. As a result, British Steel was able to secure markets which it would have forgone if it had been free to make its own choice. The intervention that the right hon. Gentleman deplores, carried out by his predecessor, was beneficial to British Steel, to its shareholders, to the Scottish economy and to the British economy. So while he may not wish to second guess British Steel management,

that management has been one of continuous retreat from market share, with the abandonment of markets to foreign competitors in a variety of areas. I regret to say that that appears to continue to be the strategy, to the detriment of the entire British economy.
Having got to where we are, the question that now arises is what is to be done to try to secure a future for the economy of Lanarkshire and west central Scotland as a result of this run-down and decline. We face a very serious situation. It would be helpful if the Government could give us a genuine, honest and detailed statement of exactly how much new money will be put into Lanarkshire when and if they secure the agreement of the European Community to the various measures being proposed, and if they will ensure that any additional money provided through the European Community will go to the people of Lanarkshire—rather than to the Treasury, as has been the Government's policy so far. I know that the Commissioner responsible has indicated that unless he gets that assurance from the Government he may not be able to secure that agreement from the Community.
With regard to the future of the steel industry in Scotland, I believe that all of us hope that any possible avenue which might lead to securing the future of the steel industry in Scotland should be explored and developed. That means the investment at Dalzell, of course, but also the potential for Hunterston to be the focus of a new steel industry in Scotland at some time in the future. It is still rated as one of the best deep-water sites in Europe and still seen to be a site which could be the focus of new investment. It seems to me that British Steel has shown itself unwilling to provide that investment, but it should not be in a position to prevent it.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful for the opportunity to refer to Hunterston in the course of the debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Hunterston's potential is enormous. Hunterston must not be forgotten in this whole process. There must be every effort, involving Government, local authorities and all other parties, to try to get it right for Hunterston. I am sure that everyone would welcome as united an approach as possible on this.

Mr. Bruce: I echo what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is the right way forward.
The other question of great concern is the contribution that British Steel is likely to make to the reinstatement of the site. It has already been mentioned that the site will probably not be included in the enterprise zone. I hope that it will not. I believe that in the short run nobody will want to do anything with that site, if it is not to continue as a steelworks, until it has been thoroughly examined and reinstated. We have to get new jobs in the area quickly; we therefore want attractive areas in which people will want to invest, rather than places where people will be saddled with a whole range of problems. It is important that those two issues are kept separate.
In this connection, British Steel must co-operate fully in terms of making every bit of information that it has available to anybody and everybody who needs it for the purpose of reinstating the site. It is also important that British Steel should make a contribution which does not amount merely to a scorched-earth retreat. It must recognise that it has gained a great deal from the community of Lanarkshire, and that it has shown a


remarkable contempt for that community in not even being prepared to meet the work force through all the years that this battle has been going on. I am talking specifically of top management, though not necessarily the middle management. It would be helpful if the Government could indicate just what measures they are prepared to take to secure a real contribution from British Steel on those fronts.
The suggestion that there is any easy, quick fix which can resolve this matter has already been addressed. A solution cannot be plucked out of the air. I have already indicated that there were moments in the past when we might have secured it. We should still explore the options. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South has indicated some of the ways in which we might move forward, and I hope that they will be explored. Nobody wants a situation in which this misery is dragged out to the point where false hopes are maintained only to be dashed again. The community has to lift its eyes to a future that will last.
The suggestion that somehow or other simply nationalising the plant could solve all the problems is a mean one. It does not change anything fundamentally about the reality of the situation. While the European Community might allow nationalisation to take place, the notion that it would do so without very serious scrutiny of the motivation, mechanisms and financial implications is one out of cloud-cuckoo-land. The go-ahead that has been given for the French plant has been on the basis of four months' thorough investigation by independent Swiss auditors, with everything held on ice while it is being carried out and with major protests now coming from Spain and Germany at the Commission's allowing it to go ahead.
It will therefore not be possible to take the steelworks over on the cheap, because that would be anti-competitive and contrary to the Community terms. If it were taken over, the question to be asked would be whether it was really the best use of public money, even for the people of Lanarkshire. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), if he were here—I choose him specifically because his constituency is next to mine—whether he really thinks that the people of Banff and Buchan, with the hon. Member as Prime Minister, would necessarily regard £200 million to nationalise a steel plant in Lanarkshire as the best way to spend the Scottish taxpayers' money. The answer is that they probably would if they were absolutely sure that this would save those jobs permanently and create an industry that would last, but if it would only lead to tears two years later, they might well ask whether the money could not have been invested in a way that would better have secured the future of the economy of Lanarkshire.
It is important that the people of Scotland focus on how they would make such decisions if those decisions were under their own control, rather than simply blaming the Government and British Steel management for the way they have failed the people of Scotland so far, on which there is wide agreement.
It must be accepted that the community of Motherwell and the surrounding area wants recognition of what it has done and the responsibility that it has undertaken. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South gave a moving testimony to the people he represents. He has illustrated far more fully than I could what British Steel certainly owes to that community, and what the people of Scotland and of Britain also owe to that community, which has

conducted itself with considerable dignity and intelligence. That has been recognised by the overwhelming majority of people throughout Britain. Indeed, in a leader in the Financial Times, which unfortunately does not have a very wide circulation, it is indicated that that community deserves the very best that we can give it. I hope that some rather less sanguine organs south of the border may read that message and accept that at the end of the day the work force and community of north Lanarkshire deserve the kind of investment that will secure the long-term future for them and their children.
I wish to stress—as I have on numerous occasions, although I have not had the right answers yet—the role which I believe that the new town development corporations can play in this. It remains a fact that the Government intend to wind up the new towns. I accept the argument that they have been successful and that their role is coming to an end, but the expertise which exists in those new towns has attracted to Scotland investment which would not have come to Britain at all but for that expertise. We should redeploy that expertise to give the people involved the opportunity to attract new investment to the new sites in other parts of Lanarkshire. I do not mean just to advise; they need power and authority, and the kind of organisation that they have had in the new town development corporations. I urge the Government to look again at how that can be done. We should not be stealing jobs from other parts of Scotland or the United Kingdom but attracting mobile investment which might otherwise go elsewhere in the Community or to Japan or north America. That seems to me to be a worthwhile aim. We should not give up the expertise that we have at the very moment when we need it most. It would be an extraordinarily foolish Government who did not recognise the case for redeploying that expertise.
This has been a long debate—it has been going on for years. In many ways, I hope that it will not continue for many more, but that there will be hope and a future. No one can suggest that there are easy answers. We need co-operation involving all sorts of organisations—ultimately, across political parties and between Government, local authorities and the public and private sectors. We must put the machinery in place. The people of Lanarkshire deserve the best. If we cannot give them such co-operation, we shall have failed them.

Mr. Bill Walker: As ever, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) demonstrated to the House the great depth of his knowledge of the industry and the fact that he genuinely cares about those who sent him here. He is a credit to them and to his party. Anything that I may say in no way reflects on him or on the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). During my time in the House, both of them have fought valiantly for those they represent.
I wish that I could say the same of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who makes the most appalling accusations. He suggested that I had behaved wrongly in relation to the Select Committee inquiry into Gartcosh. My views and my position are on record, and I stand by them today. I did not behave dishonourably in insisting that the report reflected the evidence given to the Committee. The final report did just that, so I cannot see how I behaved badly.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not behave dishonourably. I accept that he was one of the few Tory members of the Select Committee who stuck to his view, which was that he was not in favour of giving any help to Gartcosh. That is certainly correct. That was not the case with the other Conservative Members, some of whom behaved dishonourably and let us down.

Mr. Walker: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not expect me to respond to that appalling statement. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of one thing and then accuses my colleagues of another. The plain truth is that he was rumbled, and he did not like it.
This is both a good day and a sad day for Scotland—the day of Yarrow and Ravenscraig. Earlier, we had the good news that the order for three frigates for the Royal Navy has gone to Yarrow. That order allowed the privatised yard—something that the hon. Member for Gordon seems to have forgotten—to retain its design team and so continue in competition in the world market.
That was made possible because, under a Conservative Government, there is a substantial home market for military hardware, and steel is important in military hardware. Such a home market would not have existed under a socialist Labour Government at Westminster or a socialist nationalist Government in Edinburgh. The lesson is that private sector competition and a substantial home market allow even specialist industries such as warship building to compete in world markets. I hope that we shall not forget that lesson when we discuss other matters.
I congratulate the work force and shop stewards of Ravenscraig. For the past eight years, they have been nothing less than magnificent. They have removed restrictive practices and broken all production records. Today, they are paying the terrible price for world over-capacity in steel-making and the lack of demand. They are also paying the price, I believe, for the mistakes made by politicians—in the location of the plant so far from the deep-water port of Hunterston—and it is right and proper that Hunterston should come into our considerations. They are also paying the price for the failure of the European Community to deal quickly and effectively with such matters as the Spanish steel subsidy and also for the world recession. All those factors have brought about the present situation.
The workers of Ravenscraig deserve better. If the proposals of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South are not realised—I sincerely hope that they can be—the workers are right to demand good redundancy terms and special assistance to the area, to create an environment in which new enterprises and jobs can be created.
I believe that it is right—it is a principle from which I will not deviate—that management decisions must be made by the management of companies. I also believe in the private sector. Consequently, I support the right of British Steel to make the decision that it has made, painful though it may be. British Steel should, however, explain—I believe it has a moral duty to do so—why it has made that decision.
Following its promise to keep the plant open until 1994, that moral responsibility is enormous. British Steel ought to explain in detail the grounds on which the decision has been made. That is the very least that it can do for its work force, given the way in which that work force has responded over the years to the demands placed upon it.

Similarly, those who are looking to the Government to intervene have a duty to spell out exactly what they would do with their intervention within what is possible under EC restraints and rules and within the constraints of the marketplace as it stands today. They must spell out clearly how much it would cost and explain who will pay in a manner that can be understood.
The two articles in today's Glasgow Herald address the realities of the situation and do a fair demolition job on the nationalist party's simplistic, non-viable, opportunist proposals. The socialist nationalists have learnt nothing from the failure of collectivism and state industry in eastern Europe. Their behaviour in the Usher hall last Saturday was a vivid demonstration of what narrow nationalism is really like.
Socialist nationalism is the worst form of nationalism. I am reminded that, between the French revolution and the first world war, narrow nationalism was the cause of most of Europe's wars. I am also reminded that, between 1930 and 1945, socialist nationalism almost destroyed Europe.
Ravenscraig and Scotland do not want narrow socialist nationalism—nor do we want any further examples of the Fuhrer-like superior attitudes, tendencies and characteristics of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Those, coupled with Goebbels-type misinformation about saving the steel works, will be rejected by the workers at Ravenscraig and by the Scots at the general election. They have been exposed by the Glasgow Herald today and will be rumbled by the people of Scotland at the election.
This is a sad day for the people of Motherwell, but I hope that it can also be the beginning of a new dawn for them; they certainly deserve it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Monklands is an important part of Lanarkshire. Strathkelvin includes Gartcosh, which almost every hon. Member speaking in this debate has mentioned. I would be less than human if I were not to say that I am disappointed by the signals that I have been getting that I should speak for only five minutes. However, out of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who has made such a contribution to our debates on steel, I shall confine myself to five minutes.
I wish, in the very brief time available to me, to make four points. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer on the Front Bench. If anything summarises the supine, do-nothing approach to steel, it is the timetable leading up to the announcement which the Secretary of State confirmed in the House tonight. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) the Secretary of State, from a sedentary position, confirmed that, although he knew on 20 December that this closure would take place, the only action he took between then and 9 January, when the other place resumed, was to make application for an enterprise zone. [Interruption.] I am going by what the Secretary of State told the House. Although I have only five minutes, I am willing to give way to the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not knowingly mislead the House. He must know that the Secretary of State wrote immediately


to demand a meeting with Sir Robert Scholey and his colleagues before the board meeting at which the decision was taken. Of course, that meeting with Sir Robert was held.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister's intervention takes absolutely nothing from my general point. The Secretary of State ought to recognise that either he has power or he does not have power. There is a very clear precedent. His predecessor as Secretary of State—the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—came to the House and made a statement when the hot mills were closed. Whereas the current Secretary of State has not found it possible to criticise British Steel, the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands made it absolutely plain that he was opposed to British Steel's position.
The present Secretary of State's weak and mealy-mouthed response on this issue is entirely unacceptable. [Interruption.] It looks as though the Under-Secretary would like me to give way again. If I had time to do so, I would. If the hon. Gentleman is to be fair, he will allow me, as the Member representing the much-mentioned Gartcosh, another two and a half minutes to say a word or two about something we happen to know about. During the Gartcosh episode, we warned, both in the Select Committee and in the Chamber—indeed, we warned again and again and again—that, if the cold mill was closed, it would be a matter of time until Ravenscraig too would go, and that is what has happened.
There has been a search for scapegoats. We are told that there are several problems, one of which is that there is not a finishing plant. But that is the result of a Government decision, supported by the House. Obviously, privatisation weakened our position. In the case of Scottish Power, where there was not even a Scottish dimension, privatisation was not the same, but that too was the result of a Government decision endorsed by the Conservative majority, and we in Lanarkshire are now paying the price.
Then we were told by British Steel and the Government that this had something to do with profits. We were told that British Steel's profit would go down from £307 million to £19 million. Whose fault is that? Is there not a recession? Do the Government not have something to do with it? Did we not warn that if we did not have the necessary investment in manufacturing industry and training, and the necessary investment in Lanarkshire, this was inevitable?
Despite the unacceptable brevity of this debate, the people in my constituency are left with a number of problems.[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary's sedentary interruptions are not helping one iota. Let him go to Gartcosh and see things for himself.
I hope that it does not signal what we shall see at Ravenscraig, given that British Steel tells us that it will cost £200 million to clear the site. At Gartcosh, we have a derelict site, with not a job in sight. Despite the promises of 1985–86, the paper recycling plant has not got off the ground. This is the result of the Government's economic policy, in addition to what they did to Gartcosh.
I want to end with a plea. Even today there is a case for a fight for what remains of the steel industry in Lanarkshire. Even today we have to consider the Ravenscraig closure's implications for 149 firms in

Monklands itself, as well as for the Mossend freightliner depot, about which the Government today, yet again, told us so proudly.
This decision is a major blow to the infrastructure of Lanarkshire and the matter will not end with this debate. The Scottish people reserve the right to make their comments, and I believe that they will do so. This decision was made inevitable by weak, supine men—men who do not match the steel of the steelworkers of Lanarkshire—but let it be clear that, when the election is held in a few weeks' time, just as the Conservatives have manifestly deserted Scotland, the people of Scotland will desert them

Dr. John Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for making time for me. One of the tragedies of debates of this kind is that, although they should be held in Government time, they are not. After all, the Government are the guilty men. In addition, we could do without juvenile interventions such as we had earlier from the young Back-Bench Conservative Member wearing the red tie—I refer to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). Apparently he has gone back to his nursery, as he does on such occasions, having made one or two interventions. Conservative Members obviously have no interest in this matter, nor have they shown any for the past five years.
What has happened at Ravenscraig is a tragedy. "Tragedy" is a word that the sophisticated leader-writers do not like us to use. They have said that it is a word that we Scots take out of the bottom drawer on such occasions. They do not believe that we know its meaning. Well, Ravenscraig is a tragedy in the classical sense. It is the unfolding story of men and women, not eminently good or bad, but decent and dignified, fighting against almost insurmountable odds and eventually being overpowered by powers outside their own persuasion or dictation. Perhaps, before so easily dismissing Scottish Members of Parliament as bawling illiterates, the leader-writers of the London and southern English press should consider the story of Ravenscraig.
Tonight the Secretary of State used a wonderful euphemism when he told us that it was inevitable that there would be "some contraction". The Secretary of State regards the closure, the industrial murder of Ravenscraig as "some contraction". I have no personal ill-feeling towards the Secretary of State, who appears to have departed for the moment, but tonight he performed in the most oily fashion that I have seen any Secretary of State display. That was in contrast not just with his predecessors, including the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who is with us tonight and who was at least prepared to fight, to answer honest criticism and even at one stage to put his office at stake; it was in marked contrast also with the dignified contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).
The word "inevitable" which the Secretary of State used today typified the attitude of the Conservative party over the past few years. The closure of Ravenscraig was never inevitable. I do not want to dwell on the past tonight, but we need to understand the past to understand where we are, and we need to understand where we are to understand the alternatives for the future.
There is no integrated modern steel plant in the world that does not have two essential components: a steel-making side and a finishing side, a hot and cold mill. That is patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about the steel industry. Yet in a cold, calculated fashion British Steel went ahead, at best with Government collusion, at worst with Government connivance, and on occasion with encouragement from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) over Gartcosh, to deprive the Ravenscraig plant of one half of its essential elements—the finishing side.
In 1985–86 British Steel closed the Ravenscraig cold mill at Gartcosh. In 1990, it closed the hot mill. Simultaneously it refused to invest in the blast furnaces, running the plant down to a one-blast furnace operation. There were two consequences of that cold, clinical action. First, it left what remained of Ravenscraig on 7 January this year completely dependent on other plants inside British Steel for its finishing operation. Secondly, the action ensured that if Ravenscraig were removed from British Steel it would be left as a producer of raw slab steel only, without a finishing side and requiring massive investment for it to be brought back to being a viable and integrated plant.
We start from here, not from where we want to be, and I shall return to this idea later when considering some of the proposed options. For the present, I put it on record that the Government were well aware that the emasculation of one half—the vital half—of the Ravenscraig steel plant was under way.
The Government were warned six years ago almost to the day, on 8 January 1986, by those of us who marched from Gartcosh to London to bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, who, as I recall, was too busy to meet those of us who had walked 400 miles. She was having tea with Ian Botham. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned that tonight, and full credit to him for his support on that occasion.
The Government ignored the warnings. They were continually warned at the time of privatisation, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South, that if British Steel was privatised as a single unit monopoly, that would inevitably lead to the closure of Ravenscraig. This was the last chance, yet the Government ignored the warnings. We pleaded with them, asking them to allow the privatisation of a separate unit of Ravenscraig, of the plate mill at Dalzell and of the finishing works at Shotton.
The Secretary of State told us tonight that on that occasion he voted against a separate Scottish steel industry. Not only did he reject the idea, therefore, but he did not even understand what was being proposed. No one was asking him—apart from the Scottish National party—for a separate Scottish steel industry. We were asking the Secretary of State for a unit that included the steelmaking at Ravenscraig, the finishing side at Shotton and the plate mill. The Government rejected that and ignored our arguments. The tragedy was that, although the idea had the support of the Liberals, the Labour party, Motherwell district council, Strathclyde region, the campaign for the steel industry and the Ravenscraig shop stewards, the only people who opposed that last chance to save Ravenscraig as a viable unit—apart, that is, from the

Government—were members of the SNP. Indeed, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said on Third Reading of the relevant Bill that his party opposed the idea, presumably because Shotton was not in Scotland. What a way to make a decision of such importance for the industry!

Mr. Alex Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I voted for the RSD option, despite the fact that I was arguing for a separate Scottish steel industry. He may also care to recall that he did not even carry his Front-Bench spokesmen with him in supporting that option.

Dr. Reid: That is not true and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. We had discussions throughout with the people involved, and we carried our Front-Bench spokesmen with us. As so often, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Although I wish the Dalzell workers well, I must point out that, tragically, the only other people who opposed the idea were the shop stewards at Dalzell, even though it was the last chance to save Ravenscraig. We remember that now, when the SNP proposes keeping the Dalzell works and Ravenscraig without a finishing side at Shotton.
As I say, the Government ignored our warnings, and on occasion we have been bereft of support from others. What is to be done now? The Government say that there is nothing to be done. That is typical of their attitude over the past few years. For all their posturing and posing, the word was given out by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when refusing to meet the shadow Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Trade and Industry. Three days ago he said:
Ravenscraig shows the folly of political intervention in commercial decisions".
There you have it. For the Tories, Ravenscraig is not an industrial tragedy; it is and always has been a political folly. Despite the posturing, that is what has underlain their words.
But if we have a "do nothing" Government, we are not helped by a "promise everything" Opposition in the person of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. It is a tragedy that we have been diverted from the main possible alternative to save steelmaking by the fantasies that have been put forward for political reasons by the hon. Member. I have to spend some time tonight going through them because they are deluding some people—not many in Motherwell, I may add, but the less one knows about steelmaking the more attractive those proposals sound.
I should like to spend some time on the plans—there have been more than one. The first, in the immediate aftermath of the closure announcement, was to nationalise and restore Ravenscraig, presumably as a Scottish competitor to Port Talbot and Llanwern. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan shakes his head. It was not he who made it; it was the steel spokesman who spends all the money apparently, Mr. Lawson. To the Ravenscraig shop stewards who knew the plant and industry better than anyone, the plan was sheer fantasy.
It will be obvious from what I have said already that the proposition would require vast expenditure. The purchase price of the plant, £50 million to reline the blast furnaces, £650 million for a cold mill, £750 million for a hot mill and £100 million for other necessary investment, such as coke ovens and blast furnaces, came to a total of about £1,700 million. The Scottish National party has never disputed


that figure. It has said that it cannot be realistic because the share value is greater than that. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Ayr that, in his new job as chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the first things to do is to make sure that the economists he employs know the difference between share value and capital value, because it is obvious from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that not all of them have done in the past.
Plan 2 came 48 hours later. When the Scottish National party found out the actual cost, it dropped the plan to reinstate Ravenscraig. It suddenly announced—again, Mr. Lawson in a radio broadcast with me and after a telephone conversation with the shop stewards at the Clydesdale works, who informed me about it, I am afraid—that the new plan was to nationalise Clydesdale. Clydesdale had been closed eight months earlier, but presumably then the Scottish Nationalists were committed to refitting the mills at Clydesdale. This would cost another £150 million. They threw in Clydebridge and Dalzell at the same time.
Plan 3 was on the Sunday, because the cavalry came over the hill in the form of the Dalzell shop stewards. They gave them a plan which was perhaps new to the Scottish National party—it was certainly not new to the Ravenscraig shop stewards, who had been offered it for three years and had tossed it aside as unrealistic. Plan 3 is the one that they stick to now. It promises to restore Ravenscraig as a producer sending 1 million tonnes of slab to the Dalzell plate mill, and proposes the building of a new pipe mill at another site in Motherwell, the cost of which varies between £150 million and £250 million. We will not quibble about that: different people make different analyses.
There is absolutely nothing new in the proposal. It has been considered and consistently rejected by those who know the industry—above all, the steel workers at Ravenscraig. But for the sake of fairness to the SNP—because, as hon. Members know, I am a fair man—let us assume that this £250 million is not in addition to the £2,000 million already spent by Mr. Lawson. If we were to assume that it was in addition, at the present rate of daily expenditure announced by the Scottish National party steel spokesman, by my calculations that party would have spent the entire budget of an imaginary Scottish government by St. Valentine's day this year.
Let us even assume, for the sake of argument, that costs for Ravenscraig and a new Dalzell pipe mill are accurate. The problem with the SNP nationalisation plan 3 is neither dogmatic nor ideological; it is that it is still wholly unrealistic. Let us look at just some of the criticisms. First, it assumes that a two-blast furnace operation at Ravenscraig would be viable at a production level of 1 million tonnes. Wrong. As the work force, economists and industrialists will tell the SNP, the viability figure of Ravenscraig is nearer 2 million tonnes.
Secondly, if Ravenscraig is to produce the necessary 2 million tonnes to make it a viable unit and Dalzell is to take a supposed 1 million tonnes on the plate mill, what is to be done with the extra 1 million tonnes of raw slab from Ravenscraig? Give it to charity? Perhaps give it out in Leningrad along with the butter? It certainly cannot be sold.
Thirdly, what makes the SNP think that Dalzell can take I million tonnes from Ravenscraig? In the best years, 1988–89 and 1989–90, it took only about 350,000 tonnes a year. How will the SNP suddenly triple the amount that can be taken by Dalzell?
Fourthly, the SNP assumes a massive, easy and open market in the North sea. Of course, no figures are given, so I bothered to check on the latest figures. The total market for the United Kingdom sector in the North sea in the past year—which was not a bad year—was 274,000 tonnes, roughly 25 per cent. of what will pass through Dalzell's plate mill. Of that 274,000 tonnes, only 71,000 tonnes was plate. Much of it was in seamless tubes, light gauge plate, which are not produced in Scotland—unless the SNP intends to reopen the Clydesdale works and spend £250 million on that mill.
Fifthly, is the SNP aware that the maximum length of Dalzell plate production is 23 m while the modern market demands 50 m plate? Even if money were invested to meet that requirement, the layout of the Dalzell plant is such that, to get the extra length, the plant would have to be turned at right angles. Do SNP members propose to turn it at right angles? If they do, have they told Bishop Joe Devine, because they would need to knock down Motherwell cathedral?
Sixthly, does the SNP think that it would be commercially competitive to produce steel at Ravenscraig at 1,500 deg, cool it and load it on a lorry, transport it to Dalzell, unload it and put it in the plate mill, heat it again to reduce it to plate, cool it and load it on a lorry, transport it to the new pipe mill that it proposes to build somewhere else, unload it from the lorry, place it in the pipe mill, bend it, put it on a lorry and send it to the customer? If the SNP thinks that that is a viable scenario to compete with others in the market, its view of competition is different from mine.
I shall not go into detail on the challenge to me about what Labour would do, but I shall deal with it quickly. First, we would insist that British Steel maintains the plant for sale on the market. [Interruption.] One of the ways is to make British Steel aware that £200 million in reclamation charges are hanging over its head if it does not play ball with the Government. Secondly, Government resources must be used in the search for a buyer. It should not be left to British Steel. Why are not the embassies and the Department of Trade and Industry making efforts to sell it? The third course of action is to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South has been doing, which is single-handedly to investigate thin-slab casting. It is amazing that the Government, with all their resources, are sending someone along with an Opposition Member to the United States to study an issue that they should have been studying long ago.
Finally, it should be made absolutely plain to any potential buyer that the Government would be prepared, if necessary, to intervene financially in a joint venture. That matter has been discussed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who is at one with the Ravenscraig shop stewards. Eighteen months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) pledged to make finance available to develop it.
I thank the shop stewards and the representatives of the workers at Ravenscraig. With three possible exceptions, the message from all hon. Members to those shop stewards is: "Do not think that you are demeaned or belittled when you are attacked by lesser men." It is the easiest thing in the world to take workers into a struggle that they cannot win and then to wash one's hands and say, "We did not sell out." It is harder to lead with honesty. The Ravenscraig shop stewards made it plain at the beginning of the campaign that they would never make aim promise that they


could not keep, never make a pledge that they would not strive to maintain, and never make a claim that they could not justify. They have done us proud. The Labour party will adopt those three slogans, as it has in the past. We shall continue to fight for steel. We shall not make promises that we cannot keep or pledges that are fantasy, and we shall not exploit the workers in our area for our political advancement. The Ravenscraig stewards have done it, we have done it and the people of Motherwell, Lanarkshire and Scotland generally will recognise it and support us for doing exactly what the stewards did.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on his devastating analysis of the interventionist policies of the Scottish National party. Just as those policies are madcap, so are the interventionist policies of the hon. Gentleman's own party. I look forward to his being equally critical of some of the policies put forward by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) from time to time.
This has been a good day for Scotland. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Defence was able to announce that Yarrow is getting the order for three frigates. That will guarantee employment at the Yarrow yard for a substantial time. There was some snide comment that it was a political decision—and it was, of course, because the size of the defence budget is a political decision.
If the defence budget were cut by one third, as the Labour party advocates, there would be no orders for frigates at Yarrow today. If the defence budget were cut by 50 per cent., as the Liberal Democrats suggest, there would perhaps be no Scottish regiments left, and there would certainly be no orders for Yarrow. It is hypocritical of the Liberal party to go round Kincardineshire saying that it is against the removal of the regiments and that it supports orders for Scotland when it wants to halve the deference budget.
We have had an interesting debate. We heard the shadow Secretary of State announce that nationalisation was a slogan put forward by those with no expectation of power. I shall remember that when the Labour party says that it intends to nationalise the water industry. The people of Scotland are being told by the SNP that British Steel assets in Scotland should be nationalised to preserve jobs. Did nationalisation ever preserve jobs on the railways? Has it preserved jobs in British Coal? Did it preserve jobs in the shipbuilding industry? Of course it did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Rolls-Royce?"] Hon. Members who intervene from a sedentary position should realise that the prosperity of companies like Rolls-Royce will be better guaranteed in the private sector than ever it would be in the public sector.
The lesson of Ravenscraig is that it provides a cautionary tale for those politicians who think that they can buck the market indefinitely. The lesson of Ravenscraig, Bathgate and Linwood for the Scottish people is:
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
It casts doubt on those politicians who say that they can bring 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 jobs to Scotland overnight.
The speech of the shadow Secretary of State was, as usual, very loquacious. He was happy to pour words on troubled waters, but he could not produce a policy that would create or save one job at Ravenscraig.
The most dishonest policy in respect of Ravenscraig comes from the Scottish National party. If it were campaigning for an independent Scotland within Europe, how would it expect that country to solve the problem of Ravenscraig? The European Community would not stop the SNP nationalising Ravenscraig, but it would tell the SNP that it could not carry on subsidising Ravenscraig once it had nationalised it. It is in order for a private company to run a plant at a loss, but for the state permanently to subsidise an industry would be against the rules of the European Community. The Scottish National party knows that an independent Scotland within the European Community could not run Ravenscraig at an indefinite loss. It is trying to con the people of Scotland, and particularly of Ravenscraig, by pretending that it could save the plant by nationalising it. It is putting forward a misleading campaign. It knows that it is a misleading campaign.
Similarly the Labour party is putting forward a misleading campaign. That is why the Opposition chose to have only a half-day debate on Ravenscraig. They have frozen out some of their colleagues by having only a half-day debate. They also chose to hold it in the second half of a Thursday when they know that most members of the press who would realise that they are using merely empty words have gone home.
The long-term prosperity of Lanarkshire and Scotland will not be guaranteed by shoring up loss-making industries and indulging in quill pen economics. Prosperity will come only by encouraging profitable, dynamic industries to come to Scotland. Lanarkshire has many attractions for industry. It has a well-recognised, well-respected labour force and good communications. It will be unbeatable as an enterprise zone. I hope that Commissioner Milian, who has done so much to restrict money coming to areas of high unemployment in the United Kingdom, will do nothing to stop an enterprise zone being created in Lanarkshire.

Mr. Jim Sillars: When the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who sat down to great cheers from his supporters, reads what he said tomorrow in the cold light of day, I do not believe that he will feel as happy as he did a few moments ago. What we got from him, tragically, was a comprehensive rubbishing of the Dalzell plant. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are unhappy, but they will have to listen. I intend to continue until I have finished my speech.
Although the hon. Gentleman's supporters clapped and cheered, one of the things that they have to understand is that his argument against the Ravenscraig-Dalzell link up—

Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sillars: No.

Mr.Reid: rose—

Mr. Sillars: Sit down. The hon. Gentleman made fun of steel passing backwards and forwards—[Interruption.]

Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) does not intend to give way, so he has the Floor.

Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order that the Chair can deal with.

Dr. Reid: When I went to give my notes to Hansard, as requested, I understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) referred to me. In those circumstances, is it not the convention and would it not be courteous for the hon. Gentleman to give way to me so that I can correct what was a lie? I did not refer to the steel workers at Dalzell——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. First, I will ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his phrase "a lie." Then I can deal with his point of order.

Dr. Reid: I meant, of course, that it was an untruth.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is up to the hon. Member for Govan, who has the Floor, to decide whether to give way. He appears not to be doing so. He must therefore be allowed to continue with his speech.

Mr. Sillars: That was the first of the Freudian slips that were made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. I never mentioned the workers or the shop stewards at Dalzell. I said that he had rubbished the plant at Dalzell.

Mr. George Foulkes: Oh, no.

Mr. Sillars: Does not the stupid Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) understand——

Mr. Foulkes: Why does not the hon. Gentleman stand against me and have a go at the next election?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This has been a very well conducted debate so far. We are now coming towards the end of the debate and we want a proper winding up. Let us listen to all those hon. Members who want to speak.

Mr. Sillars: As I was saying, and as I intend to say, this stupid man here does not understand that, if we rubbish a plant, we damage its future standing in the minds of the policy makers who have to decide its future.
One of the tragedies of the first phase of the Ravenscraig closure was the comprehensive rubbishing of the Ravenscraig plant—(Interruption.] Then they said—

Dr. Reid: By The Sun.

Mr. Sillars: Opposition Members who have been——

Dr. Reid: You are the paymaster.

Mr. Sillars: You people who have been——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can hear only one hon. Member at a time—[Interruption.] Order. I cannot
hear myself think this evening. Will hon. Members please come to order? Mr. Sillars.

Mr. Sillars: We are taking no lectures from folk who, for a long time, were in political bed with that crook, Bob Maxwell.

The great tragedy of the first phase was the rubbishing of the Ravenscraig plant. How is it possible to say thereafter, "We should like somebody to come along and buy a plant that we have just rubbished"? Every speech that I have heard tonight from a Labour Member has been towards the compelling logic of the public ownership of the steel industry.

Dr. Reid: What?

Mr. Sillars: Oh yes. Opposition Members have kept saying, "We could press British Steel, but everybody knows that that is a waste of time." The hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, "Let someone take Scottish assets into private ownership and we will join in a joint venture"; but why not take Scottish assets into public ownership and then be open to a joint venture with a private organisation later? Their compelling logic is certain. We all know that what we have had from British Steel has been the malevolent exercise of monopolistic power in the private sector. The standard socialist answer to such power is to take it into public ownership—not to allow that malevolent power to dominate strategic industries and communities.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, "We don't like to make promises that we canna keep." So let me ask him about the promise that was made on 23 February 1988, when his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said:
for the reasons that I have yet to develop fully, Opposition Members and the trade union movement strongly believe that the steel industry is most appropriately owned in a form of public ownership. We shall decide that form and the order of priorities by which it is to be secured when we return to power"—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 184.]
What about the priorities now in Lanarkshire? The hon. Gentleman's priorities now are to take British Steel's assets in Scotland out of the grip of the board of British Steel, that being the only guarantee of preserving jobs and the Scottish steel industry in Lanarkshire.
The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Motherwell, North have said, "Look at the nonsense of the £1.7 billion compared to the price of the shares on the stock exchange today." Do they not understand that, if I say to somebody, "I should like you to spend £1.7 billion buying our plant", that person is likely to reply, "I would buy your plant only if I wanted access to certain markets, but I can get the whole of British Steel, including the assets of your plant, wholly and totally for only £1.3 billion and, as a matter of fact, if I want control, I do not need to spend £1.3 billion, I need to spend only £700 million"—

Dr. Reid: Let us suppose that that mythical chap did come along and that the share value stayed at its current level—because it was known that there was a buyer, it might double or even treble—but let us suppose that, against all the evidence from the history of the market, the share value remained static. The buyer would still have to spend £1.7 billion on top of the share value simply to make it productive.

Mr. Sillars: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's account, the strip mill is still there. He included it in the £1.7 billion. He has the same economic adviser and calculator as Alf Young of the Glasgow Herald.
I want to argue that the best way to save the Scottish steel industry is to take all British Steel's assets in Scotland


into public ownership. The thing to do is to captialise on the reprieve for Dalzell because Dalzell is the key to the retention of the base of the Scottish steel industry, on which base we could rebuild the industry.
If folk say to me, "Where did you invent that 1 million tonnes stuff?", I will tell them that it is from a report produced for Labour Strathclyde region by the department of political economy at Glasgow university in February 1990. It said:
The Dalzell plant currently takes about 25 per cent. of Ravenscraig's production.
Later, on page 23, it makes a good point. This is endorsed by Labour Strathclyde region. The report says:
Ravenscraig's product range is ideal for supplying a large plate mill.
We are talking about a 1-million-tonne mill.
It has developed special techniques for ingot production for thick plate applications and has a casting capacity of 1.9 million tonnes per annum which can be flexibly switched between slab and strip production to suit market sentiment.
It went on to argue that the configuration between Ravenscriag and Dalzell was suited to the market that is now developing. It described the market as a fragmented, demand-led market, where people might demand a smaller tonnage of steel but wanted highly specialised steel and special products. The report argued eloquently that that configuration would meet market circumstances in the years that lay ahead. So that is the argument on which we have founded our case—an argument produced by Glasgow university and endorsed by Strathclyde regional council.
At the root of the matter lies this issue. There will be a 100-million-tonne plate mill with a pipe mill attached thereto, with a steel supplier up front. The question is whether it goes to Teesside or Lanarkshire, because the potential of the Scottish steel industry as we conceive it is exactly the same as British Steel conceives it. It would do what we ask today if the cash position was better than it is. That is the key factor. The only way to guarantee that the mill goes to Lanarkshire is to take the assets into public ownership. If the Labour party was worth its socialist salt, it would agree with me 100 per cent. of the way.
It is remarkable to hear Labour Member after Labour Member complain about the misapplication of private power but not follow the ideological guidance system and say that that private power must be curbed by the application of public power to take those assets into public control. They remind me of the ditty: "The people's flag is now mauve in hue. No longer red, it is turning a contemptible blue".

Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly at the end of this extremely important debate for my constituents and for people in many other parts of Scotland.
I begin by quoting the Financial Times. The Secretary of State for Scotland chose to give a quotation from it earlier. I shall come to that in a moment. First, I should like to quote a section of an editorial which appeared in that prestigious newspaper on 9 January. It is quoted in the document given to me and to many other hon. Members by my friend and constituent Rev. John Potter, the industrial chaplain to Lanarkshire who has done so much during the period of the rundown of the great steel

industry to comfort the people that he serves and to campaign on their behalf. The words that he quoted are worth listening to because the Financial Times played such a marginal part in the Secretary of State's speech.
The editorial stated:
The only other thing to be written in the Ravenscraig epitaph is that there was never a community more deserving of EC and UK Government help in rebuilding its local economy. Ravenscraig's work force has been loyal, hardworking and as efficient as the plant permitted. It has every right to expect politicians to move whatever bureaucratic obstacles stand in the way of measures to stimulate the creation of jobs in industries more suited to the periphery of Europe.
I hope that the Secretary of State will pay as much attention to that as he did to his selective quotation. So much was made of that quotation that I wish to direct the House's attention to the rest of it, which the Secretary of State did not choose to point out.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, in response to a question put by the Financial Times about sectoral intervention, taking steel as an example:
it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs. What the steel industry needs is a more vibrant domestic market, specially in the manufacturing sector and a chance therefore to make even further increases in their productivity and be more competitive in difficult international markets.
If the Secretary of State agreed with the part that he quoted, does he agree that the Government have supervised a Scottish and a British economy which has created the conditions in which the steel plants of Scotland and of Britain are in such trouble?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's attention must have wandered. Had he been in the Chamber throughout my speech, he would have heard me read precisely that part of the quotation which he has just quoted and which I endorsed.

Mr. Robertson: It was a selective quotation, underscored, missing out the key component that the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland understand—that it is not intervention at this stage which matters, but the fact that the economy is in such deep trouble that we are at the bottom of all the European leagues. That is why Ravenscraig has been picked out at this point.
In this debate, as my hon. Friends and those who represent the rest of industrial Lanarkshire have rightly pointed out, it would be easy to be critical of a Government who have done so little and yet protest so much when the final decision has been taken. One cannot complain if a butterfly cannot get into the air when its wings have been taken off. The Government stood back when the steel industry got into that plight.
British Steel is a public limited company which does not even have the guts to come to Scotland and explain the reasons why a controversial decision was necessary. Sir Bob Scholey may well believe in his heart of hearts that it is the right decision, but if that is so, as the steward of the private steel industry in this country, why did he not have the courage and decency to face those people who rose to every exhortation to deal with the challenge put before them?
I shall briefly outline some of the arguments put by Rev. John Potter to hon. Members. He did not do so in a spirit of looking back or of recrimination. Practical issues concern him and should concern all Members of the House. He mentioned the number of small companies which will be dramatically affected as a result of the


premature closure of Ravenscraig and which cannot expect to get headlines in the way that major companies have. Both he and I ask the Minister whether it is possible to survey the impact on such small companies and study what can be done for them. What about employees of the contractors' firms, who will not be able to share in the benefits of the redundancy terms offered by British Steel? What will be done in the way of retraining and re-employment for the people affected?
Rev. John Potter asks about the possibility of a "brainstorming" meeting at which ideas, many of which were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), could be put forward to help the future regeneration of an area which has been so hard hit. He asks about the enterprise zone. I shall not go over the ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the unacceptable and unforgivable delay in moving between the recommendation of the Lanarkshire working party and the application for enterprise zone status. What about the delay and uncertainty that will be created in the meantime before the small enterprise zones get off the ground? Those few questions are relevant, reasonable and deserve serious and sober answers from a Government who have an obligation and a responsibility.
The decision to close Ravenscraig has been a blow to the industrial heartlands of Scotland and to the thousands of people and their families whose livelihoods depend upon those works. The workers of Ravenscraig have done so much, not just in terms of campaigning, but in delivering productivity and production records. The communities that will be affected are linked together in their sadness—but although they are sad, they are far from beaten.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has brought dignity back to the debate. He reminded us that 400 miles away many people are sad and have been deeply damaged by what has occurred. We must keep that memory constant.
My hon. Friend was also right to remind us that when Scholey promised that steel would continue to be made at Ravenscraig until 1994, Labour Members knew that that was not a reprieve, but a stay of execution. Sir Robert Scholey—never kind and gentle to Scotland—thought that that was how long he would need in Lanarkshire. That was his pessimistic estimate because he wanted out of Lanarkshire. The Government's principal fault lies in their running of the economy, which was such as to surpass even the pessimism of Sir Robert. The economy was run down to the extent that Sir Robert felt that he could move out two years before his pessimistic promise.
The Government must come to terms with their guilt. The decision has been put down to market conditions, but a market does not just occur. A market is constructed mainly by Government policies. The recession that the Government have created is the reason, above all, why we are here on this sad night.
We must look ahead at what we can do. We would not start from here. It is a tragic point from which to start. We would certainly not give any promises that we cannot deliver.
My memory of tonight is of the quiet dignity of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). Motherwell has been served well by its Members of Parliament. I shall remember the quiet dignity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South has pursued this issue for a decade or more. He is constantly seeking solutions.
A strange absence from the debate has been talk about private sector leadership and the enterprise culture, of which we heard so much in 1988 and 1989. What has happened to them? Why are they not mentioned now? Now we are thrown back, as we always knew that we would be, on the need for public sector intervention.
We must obviously carry on seeking a buyer, and we must give every encouragement to that buyer if one can be found. Another striking thing about my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South—and all good wishes to him—is that he has more ideas than are produced from all the resources of the Government.
The enterprise zone concept must be pursued with all energy, not picked up again whenever bad news appears. The Government are jerked into activity only when there is bad news. There is no zeal about them. We must stop all dishonesty about capital involvement, an issue to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred. There must be nothing tricky about the resources that will be put in. We must be told clearly just what are the new resources.
We must examine the capital infrastructure that is needed, and let it be clear that there is no political game playing between regional councils and the Government over roads. We must demand an environmental clean-up from British Steel. That is the least we should have. British Steel must go beyond the legal minimum, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that he is persuading, even forcing, the company to do that.
We must get the full educational and training resources of the country into Lanarkshire. There must be a full analysis of the job and investment prospects. Let us abandon the pretence that the local enterprise companies can cope with education and training. In their employment training and youth training programmes, they are concerned with 2 to 3 per cent. of the work force and the available-to-work force. The local enterprise companies are involved with only 20 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds who are on YT schemes. That is not the way forward with education and training in the context of which we are speaking. Reference has been made to the possibility of upgrading the education institutions of Lanarkshire and making sure that the universities and colleges in the area are fully involved.
We must review the rundown of the East Kilbride development corporation. It is extraordinary that the Government are not prepared to look at that issue. What dogma is behind that? What difficulties are there between Scottish Enterprise, the local development agency and East Kilbride development corporation?
It is sheer folly for the message to be sent out in respect of the East Kilbride development corporation, "We are winding down." It is extraordinary that that should he happening now in Lanarkshire, which has the most successful job development agency in the country. The message now going out reads, "We are winding down and shutting up," even though that body last year, in the dire conditions of the time, attracted 1,100 jobs and £34 million


of capital to Lanarkshire. Yet the Government will not even address the question whether the East Kilbride development corporation can be kept going.
The Scottish Office must take full responsibility for that state of affairs, for it has acted with truly Thatcherite zeal. Even the present Government could not have done more. The contrast, on the issue of public expenditure, between the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office is truly remarkable. The Welsh Development Agency budget went up 98 per cent. between 1979 and 1990. The Scottish Development Agency budget, in the same 11-year period, stagnated; it increased by only 2.4 per cent. That happened at the choice of the Government.
When the Welsh had steel closures in the early 1980s, at present-day prices an additional £187 million went to the Welsh areas, and good luck to them for that. When Scottish Enterprise was set up—we knew that it would happen—there was a cut of nearly £200 million in its budget. Its budget in Lanarkshire, until there was a protest, was cut from £7 million to £4.2 million, a reduction of 42 per cent. The original allocation to the Lanarkshire development agency went down from £7.3 million to £4.2 million. There was then a protest and the Government realised—again, in embarrassment—that the figure should be adjusted, and so it was. Unless the Government are constantly brought to face the problems, they will back away from and neglect Lanarkshire.
The Government have failed Lanarkshire. Last Monday, the Secretary of State pretended that the closure of Ravenscraig would add just 1 per cent. To Lanarkshire's unemployment rate. Over a period of 11 years, Motherwell lost 60 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs, and Lanarkshire as a whole lost 40 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs before the closure of Ravenscraig. In the Lanarkshire travel-to-work area in 1979, male unemployment was 10 per cent. It is now 20 per cent. That is a measure of the Government's derelict position on training in Lanarkshire. The Government should go, and they should take their guilt with them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): This is an important debate. In one sense, it has been two debates. In the first debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House made constructive and reasoned suggestions about the future of Lanarkshire. Those hon. Members included my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who rightly pointed to the dangers of intervention. I do not think that he was arguing about whether it was wrong for a Conservative Government to have been instrumental in setting up Ravenscraig in the first place. Speeches of Opposition Members also contained constructive and reasoned suggestions. The comments of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about the Ravenscraig site and the enterprise zone were correct. I shall come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) if I have sufficient time. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the points made by the Rev. John Potter. I was glad to meet the Rev. John Potter this

morning. He has made a major contribution and I agree substantially with the points which he made to me and which the hon. Member for Hamilton made to the House.
The second debate has been political. I have seldom seen the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) under such pressure. He is normally the most courteous of Members in giving way, but he would not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who not only represented a steelworks but was on the Committee that considered the British Steel Bill, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) so effectively referred in his speech. That saves me from repeating exactly the same in mine.
The Labour Members who made the political arguments in this debate were bowled middle stump. Either they are socialists, in which case they must agree with the thoughts and philosophy of the hon. Member for Govan, or they are loyal followers of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be having all sorts of meetings tonight because each time Labour Members were challenged about the quotation in this morning's Financial Times they said that they had had a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and had checked the policies. There will be a U-turn tomorrow, so we shall see the right hon. Gentleman's next argument.
Opposition Members cannot tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have intervened in some undefined way given that the Leader of the Opposition said—I remind them of the quotation—that the steel industry did not need
some civil servant or minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, and the hon. Member for Garscadden has been bowled middle stump, not by Conservative Members but by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman seems to have the rather odd view that either one is in favour of total intervention and state control in every situation, despite the practicalities, or one does nothing at all. That is the choice that he is presenting. Does it not occur to him that there are some politicians who, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition advocates in that article, look at intervention where it is justified and act in the way that the circumstances demand? That is what we have been advocating throughout and that is what we want to do now. We do not believe in going down the public ownership road when there clearly is a market problem and there clearly is no case for it, but we do not believe in sitting on our backsides and doing nothing, as the bewhiskered Under-Secretary is advocating.

Mr. Stewart: I should like to be a fly on the wall at the forthcoming meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Garscadden when they try to sort out what the Labour party's policy actually is.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I will give way, but it will have to be for the last time.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister will recall that I gave way in a five-minute speech, so he is not over-generous. Does he accept that the fundamental issue of the Secretary of


State's role between 20 December and 9 January was what he did or did not do? Why did he not remind British Steel that we were given not a letter, not a promise, not a meeting, but a guarantee? What happened to the guarantee?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend of course asked for and was given a meeting with the chairman of British Steel and his colleagues. We went through the guarantee, which was always subject, of course, to market conditions. But I will tell the hon. Member what would have been the case if the Labour Government had been elected last October. The Labour Secretary of State for Scotland would not have been told anything by British Steel, because it would not have trusted a Labour Government to keep the matters confidential.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman would not give way more than once.
I turn to the constructive points that have been made from both sides of the House. My hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and for Tayside, North, the hon. Member for Gordon and, of course, the constituency Members and others have rightly paid tribute to the Ravenscraig work force for their hard work, effort and endeavour. I, too, pay tribute to them, and I hope that when the furore has died down British Steel will lose no opportunity to pay the same tribute—[Interruption.] It is not a matter for laughter. It is crucial for the future of Lanarkshire that firms are encouraged to come into Lanarkshire and that the message that the work force are skilled and dedicated and that this closure was no fault of theirs gets across to the whole industrial community.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and other hon. Members talked about the future. I entirely accept that we must look at mechanisms that will follow up the success of the Lanarkshire working party. I am discussing that with Lanarkshire development agency. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton that not just economic consultants and economists have expertise and that we must involve the whole community.
What have we had from the Opposition? We have had
from the Scottish National party a policy that is
unworkable and, from the Labour party, no policy at all. The Labour party gave not £1-worth of extra commitment to Lanarkshire tonight. I urge the House to support the Government's amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 242.

Division No.1 54]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blunkett, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Boateng, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bradley, Keith


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bellotti, David
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)





Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Canavan, Dennis
Kilfoyle, Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clelland, David
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Litherland, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Livingstone, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Loyden, Eddie


Crowther, Stan
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McFall, John


Cunningham, Dr John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Darling, Alistair
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McMaster, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Enright, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fyfe, Maria
O'Brien, William


Galbraith, Sam
Parry, Robert


Galloway, George
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Radice, Giles


Gould, Bryan
Randall, Stuart


Graham, Thomas
Redmond, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robertson, George


Grocott, Bruce
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hain, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rooker, Jeff


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooney, Terence


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hinchliffe, David
Ruddock, Joan


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Salmond, Alex


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Short, Clare


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sillars, Jim


Howells, Geraint
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Snape, Peter


Illsley, Eric
Soley, Clive


Ingram, Adam
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Greville
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David






Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Stephen, Nicol
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winnick, David


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wray, Jimmy


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Joan



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N.
Mrs. Llin Golding


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Mr. Thomas McAvoy




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Allason, Rupert
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkins, Robert
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Benyon, W.
Gardiner, Sir George


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gregory, Conal


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Chris
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Janman, Tim


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James


Eggar, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)





King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Raffan, Keith


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Redwood, John


Knox, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Latham, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lightbown, David
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)>
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lord, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Malins, Humfrey
Shelton, Sir William


Mans, Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marland, Paul
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sims, Roger


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mates, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian.
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Speller, Tony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, Sir David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stokes, Sir John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Sumberg, David


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Summerson, Hugo


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patten, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Porter, David (Waveney)



Portillo, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Tim Boswell and


Price, Sir David
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 195.

Division No. 55]
[10.11 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Allason, Rupert
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Ashby, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes






Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Irvine, Michael


Butler, Chris
Jack, Michael


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Janman, Tim


Carrington, Matthew
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Kilfedder, James


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knox, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael


Couchman, James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Cran, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lightbown, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Madel, David


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Maples, John


Eggar, Tim
Marland, Paul


Emery, Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evennett, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fallon, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin


Farr, Sir John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Favell, Tony
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Miscampbell, Norman


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Sir David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moate, Roger


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Monro, Sir Hector


Freeman, Roger
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


French, Douglas
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fry, Peter
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gale, Roger
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gardiner, Sir George
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Gill, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Neubert, Sir Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Norris, Steve


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Page, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Paice, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patnick, Irvine


Grist, Ian
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hague, William
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Portillo, Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Raffan, Keith


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rathbone, Tim


Harris, David
Redwood, John


Hawkins, Christopher
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hayward, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rowe, Andrew


Hill, James
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim





Sayeed, Jonathan
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Sumberg, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Summerson, Hugo


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Shelton, Sir William
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Tim Boswell.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Enright, Derek


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Alton, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flannery, Martin


Ashton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foster, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Beith, A. J.
Fraser, John


Bellotti, David
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blunkett, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David


Dixon, Don
Lamond, James


Dobson, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted


Doran, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livingstone, Ken


Eadie, Alexander
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey






Loyden, Eddie
Rooney, Terence


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum A.
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Salmond, Alex


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McLeish, Henry
Short, Clare


McMaster, Gordon
Sillars, Jim


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Maxton, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Meacher, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stephen, Nicol


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wallace, James


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Brien, William
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Prescott, John
Wilson, Brian


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn



Reid, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, George
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Rooker, Jeff

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the Government's response to the announcement by British Steel of its decision to close Ravenscraig; acknowledges the extensive and effective nature of the measures already being undertaken by the Government as part of its continuing commitment to improve the economy and infrastructure in Lanarkshire, in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, the Lanarkshire Development Agency, and a range of other public and private bodies; welcomes the Government's commitment of some £120 million since the beginning of March 1991 for economic development and training in Lanarkshire; and supports the proposal by Her Majesty's Government that an enterprise zone be established in North Lanarkshire.

PETITION

Wooler Green (Shop)

Mr. David Evans: I am privileged to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of 710 residents of Woolmer Green in my constituency. The petition concerns the proposed closure of the local village shop because of the approval by the local authority, Welwyn and Hatfield council, of a planning application. The petitioners oppose it on the ground that it would deprive the vicinity of a vital amenity. That will bring undue hardship upon the people of Woolmer Green, especially the village's many senior citizens. The petition concludes:
Whereupon your petitioners pray that your honourable House will support the view of your petitioners, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Tony Speller: I start by quoting from my maiden speech nearly 13 years ago:
I should like to start my career in this House by paying a deep and sincere tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Jer Thorpe. As a constituency Member, he was without equal, and there is no doubt of the respect and affection in which he was and is still held in our constituency."—[Official Report, 22 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 941.]
Mr. Thorpe is now ill with Parkinson's disease, a fact known and regretted throughout north Devon and further. This debate in public is about Parkinson's disease and a particular experimental treatment. It is also about the health service treatment of Mr. Thorpe, since it was his doctors who approached me, and his wish, not mine, which has put the matter into the public domain.
The Parkinson's Diseases Society has been in touch with me, and I am grateful to its chief executive, Mrs. Mary Baker, both for information and for helping me understand the problems. She advises me that the treatment involves the implant of brain cells from an aborted foetus which must be 10 to 11 weeks' gestation.
The Litchdon medical centre is a practice of eight doctors in Barnstaple. All eight doctors signed a letter on 13 December to the Secretary of State for Health and asked me to pass it on. They copied the letter to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and also to the North Devon community health council.
I must read the letter, written by Dr. Beer on behalf of the practice, because it is the crux and the purpose of the debates:
The Right Hon. Jeremy Thorpe recently underwent a new and innovative neurosurgical operation carried out by Professor Hitchcock, Consultant Neurosurgeon at the Midland Centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology, Nottingham, as a National Health Service patient. Mr. Thorpe was originally referred to Professor Hitchcock by his London neurologist. Professor Hitchcock agreed that neurosurgery could he beneficial. He was told that there was a waiting list and that he must be referred by his General Practitioner, as a National Health Service patient, in order that the local Health Authority provide the necessary funding, as the operation is only available on the N.H.S.
Mr. Thorpe then approached me, his General Practitioner here in Barnstaple and asked to be referred to Professor Hitchcock. I contacted the North Devon District Health Authority and asked for an extra-contractual referral to be made for this operation. This request was turned down because of the cost and the fact that the present 30 per cent. success rate of this operation did not represent 'value for money'. Mr. Thorpe then contacted the Health Authority himself and pleaded his case to no avail. Because Mr. Thorpe resides for part of the time in London, he decided to try another Health Authority. He registered with a G.P. near his London home who contacted his District Health Authority who readily agreed to finance his brain operation as an extra contractual referral, and surgery was carried out within a short space of time. Mr. Thorpe is the 47th patient to receive this form of new treatment and he tells us that his medical condition has dramatically improved.
In the new document—The Patients' Charter—there are listed seven existing rights; the first of which states: 'Every citizen has the right to receive health care .on the basis of clinical need regardless of the ability to pay'. The fact that one Health Authority felt unable to fund this operation and yet another Health Authority felt able to provide the necessary monies does call into question whether the Patients' Charter does actually work. The Midland Centre for Neurosurgery

and Neurology is the only centre in the United Kingdom able to provide such a pioneering operation which is only available through the N.H.S. If Mr. Thorpe had not been in a fortunate position of being able to register with a G.P. in a different Health Authority, he would not have had his operation. This situation has enormous implications for all patients who require an extra contractual referral based on clinical need. We look forward to your reply.
That letter was signed by Dr. Richard Beer and the other seven doctors in the practice.
I forwarded the letter to my right hon. Friend and informed Dr. Beer that that had been done. In addition, I asked the practice about the change of GP, since few of my constituents have the advantage of choice about which authority they use. Being unaware of the details within the North Devon health authority, and seeking in no way to make critical judgments myself, I obtained a copy of the minute of the health authority. It reads:
The director of medical services … drew members' attention to a recent article in the British Medical Journal which highlighted that, out of 18 clients treated, the 22.2 per cent. success rate related only to those clients under the age of 50 years. The members re-emphasised the decision, taken at a previous meeting, not to pay for this treatment.
The committee made a judgment, based on the recommendation of its director. The Secretary of State replied:
In the case Dr. Beer refers to, the treatment involved is a relatively new and largely unproven one. A recent British Medical Journal article indicated that in a survey of eighteen patients treated in this way only four"—
that is the 22.2 per cent.—
showed any significant improvement.
My right hon. Friend then said:
I understand that in this instance Dr. Beer's request was considered at some length by an assessment panel of six which included the District Chair, Chief Executive and District Director of Public Health. The decision was I am told based on clinical grounds because of the unproven nature of the treatment. District Health Authorities have a difficult task in deciding priorities for treatment within available resources. I would not expect these decisions to be uniform across the country because of different local circumstances and the likelihood of different clinical views on the efficacy of particular treatment. The North Devon HA took clinical advice in assessing this individual case and on the basis of that advice decided that this ECR was not a high priority for funding. I would not see this however in any way abrogating General Practitioner's basic rights of referral.
My right hon. Friend ends his letter by saying:
I am pleased to learn that following the granting of an ECR by Parkside HA Mr. Thorpe has received treatment and that it is proving beneficial.
Shortly afterwards, I received another letter from the practice, dated 20 January. As time is short, I shall just make the four points referred to in the letter. The practice reiterated its concern about having the freedom to refer patients according to clinical need. The practice pointed out that the criteria upon which Mr. Thorpe's referral was turned down are invalid and says:
The NHS changes must not be allowed to stymie new medical treatments, otherwise",
it asks,
how can pioneering work and advances take place? An initial success rate of 4 out of 18 patients is a rate of almost 25 per cent. and this, for a new treatment in the most difficult cases, would be very acceptable.
The practice is also concerned that the standard of care may depend on which area a person lives in and what money is available. The fourth point is:
Why should a Health Authority turn down an unproven treatment when it holds contracts with Homeopathic Hospitals and is prepared to pay for such treatment to be carried out?


The letter concludes:
We feel that this situation would not have arisen if ERCs were not included in health authority budgets. We would recommend that these should be taken out of such budgets.
Apart from the issues that affect Mr. Thorpe personally, questions are raised by this form of treatment that affect any national health service patient who is similarly afflicted. I have four questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, is this treatment, when successful, likely to reduce the effects of the disease, or does it have only a palliative effect, in that side effects are avoided from powerful drugs that would otherwise have to be used?
Secondly, is this treatment acceptable under medical ethics? We are talking about the brain tissue of an aborted foetus whose gestation period has to be between 10 and 11 weeks. There is the possibility of pressure being brought to bear to produce an aborted foetus at that stage for the treatment. I do not pretend to know what the ethics committee would say about that. Does my hon. Friend hope that it may be a valuable treatment, to be made available, if finally proven, to sufferers of Parkinson's disease throughout the health service?
Thirdly, if the treatment is available currently, upon clinical decision, under the national health service, should it not be available to patients in north Devon as readily as it is available to patients in London?
Fourthly, extra-contractual referrals are clearly at the discretion of the health authority concerned, but surely clinical decision must be the main criterion. While this treatment remains at the experimental stage, may I suggest that the logical position is that prospective patients who have been referred onward by the general practitioner and consultant should be selected—probably by Professor Hitchcock himself—and financed centrally as part of the experimental budget? It is unreasonable that local health authorities should have to compare routine needs—for hernia operations, or knee and hip joint operations—with the problems surrounding experimental surgery, of which they must have no direct knowledge.
Sufferers from Parkinson's disease are many, and their problems are hateful and hurtful. I now know that they are not automatically exempt from prescription charges, and I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the recommendation of the Parkinson's Disease Society of the United Kingdom, which I support, that sufferers should be exempt from prescription charges.
My constituents remember the dashing figure of Jeremy Thorpe. I take no pleasure in bringing this case before the House, although his example may well prove a catalyst to bring help to fellow sufferers.
The patients charter is a bold commitment from a strong Prime Minister who believes, as I do, in a one-class, first-class health service. I receive no complaints of substance about the excellent health service in north Devon; nor do I believe that it has exceeded its authority in any way. But the nagging thought remains—why "Yes" in London, but "No" in Devon if the patient and the clinical advice were the same?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) began by drawing attention to

the fact that he has always been generous in his praise of the constituency record of Jeremy Thorpe. Although neither my hon. Friend nor I were Members of the House when Mr. Thorpe was a Member, we both remember that, as my hon. Friend said, he was a "dashing figure" in the politics of the 1970s. As my hon. Friend rightly said, Parkinson's disease is a distressing condition, and it will be a cause of sadness to all hon. Members that Mr. Thorpe has come to suffer from it. I do not believe that the House would expect me to comment on Mr. Thorpe's particular case, beyond expressing the sympathy of the House for his condition. The health service takes seriously the issues of confidentiality which surround the treatment of its patients, and it would be wrong for me to discuss in the House the details of Mr. Thorpe's individual treatment.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, however, the handling of Mr. Thorpe's case raises some important general principles about the management of the health service. I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify any uncertainty that may have resulted from this case, the specific circumstances which lay behind it and the way in which it had to be decided. I refer especially to the fact that Mr. Thorpe had access to two general practitioners and thus to two separate decision-making processes, which arrived at different conclusions.
I begin by repeating the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North on 14 January, that in an organisation the size of the health service, which deals with so many patient contacts, it should not be surprising—indeed, it should be welcomed—that we do not seek to impose total uniformity on every single decision that is made about the treatment of patients across the country. To attempt to do so, even if it were possible——

Mr. James Wallace: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: If I may, I should like to develop my argument because there are several aspects to it.
I firmly believe that it would be impossible to deliver that objective, even had we wanted it. But even if it were possible, it would be actively undesirable to seek to impose precise uniformity in relation to every decision taken about the treatment of health service patients, because that would mean that no individual within the health service could try a different approach without first having had it cleared through a myriad of different committees. We seek to establish in the health service a system of decision-making which allows different people to reach different conclusions subject to some basic principles which clearly must underlie the delivery of socialised medicine. Provided that they are consistent with the basic principles set out, as my hon. Friend rightly said, in among other places, the patients charter, the fact that different decisions may be reached in different parts of the country is not surprising. Indeed, one of the benefits or desirable aspects of the health service is that different clinicians and managers can try out different alternative approaches.
The fact that we recognise that different people in the health service will produce different answers to the same questions is manifest in the fact that different health authorities will reach different conclusions, based on their assessment of the health needs of their resident populations and of their local priorities.. They will also


reach conclusions about the allocation of resources and their priority in terms of the use of resources to address the specific health needs of their local populations.
Health authorities will reach those conclusions under the reformed health service in close consultation with their general practitioners. The intention is that the decisions that health authorities take about the placing of contracts should reflect the views of GPs and also the health authority's assessment of the district's local health priorities. However, once the health authority has placed those contracts in those terms, we come to the questions which determine the decisions about the honouring of extra-contractual referrals. That is the issue which lies at the heart of Mr. Thorpe's case.
The Secretary of State has asked me specifically to clarify the principles which underlie the administration of ECRs within the reformed health service. When speaking to the council of the Royal College of General Practitioners on 9 May last year he said:
We have consistently repeated the principle that the reforms should not cut across GPs' freedom of referral. That remains the case. If, for clinical reasons, a GP wishes to refer a patient to a hospital that is not contracted to provide a service to the GP's district, the GP must be able to do so.
That is a direct quotation from a speech made by my right hon. Friend. The Government regard themselves as bound by that principle, and we expect to see it carried out by the management of the health service. As that is the political sphere given to the health service—it is a public service accountable through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House—the management of the health service has set out clearly how that principle should be applied to the management of ECRs.
Paragraph 3.14 of the management document, "Contracts for Health Service Operational Principles", states:
The DHA will not challenge the GP's choice of provider unless it can be shown that the proposed referral is wholly unjustified on clinical grounds, or where an alternative referral would be equally efficacious for the patient, taking into account the patient's wishes.
So the test that has to be applied before a health authority refuses an ECR is that the decision must be "wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds". The fact that that is the test does not detract from the fact that the health authority remains responsible for the management of the ECR budget. I disagree with my hon. Friend's constituents on this point. Once the authority has accepted that an individual ECR is not wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds, it remains a management responsibility of the health authority to balance the clinical priority of acceptance of a particular ECR against its budgetary considerations. The budgetary responsibility rests with the health authority.
The decision about an individual referral on clinical grounds, however—provided that it is not wholly unjustifiable—rests ultimately with the GP. I emphasise to the House that that has been made clear both in the speech of my right hon. Friend to the council of the Royal College of General Practitioners and in the management advice document issued by the management executive. So the principles cannot be regarded as being in any doubt.
My hon. Friend would then understandably say, "How does it come about, then, that North Devon health authority finds itself in the position that it does on this referral?" The best answer that I can give him is that the fact that Mr. Thorpe had available to him the escape route

of appealing to a health authority elsewhere in the country meant that the process was not carried to its conclusion in north Devon. Mr. Thorpe had available to him a quicker way to secure the referral that he was seeking to the unit in Birmingham, so the process was not finally concluded in north Devon. That is best illustrated by the fact that a similar case has been referred by another GP in north Devon to the same unit in Birmingham. Although the decision has not yet been made, that ECR is likely to be approved.
Although in theory we do not know how it would have turned out if that had been the only option available to Mr. Thorpe, we know that the principles are clearly set out in the health service management documents and at a political level by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
No one argues that the referral is wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds. Clearly the health authority does not argue that because it is about to honour a similar referral to the same unit in Birmingham. We do not know whether the process would have reached its conclusion if Mr. Thorpe had not had the alternative course open to him.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions about the treatment. He asked about its effectiveness, whether it would have a palliative effect, and how it would work. I am advised that if an implant is successful it would reduce the need for medication and would therefore reduce the likelihood of the side effects that may be caused by drug treatment. That is my advice, although I emphasise to my hon. Friend that I am not a clinician and he does not need to be told that.
My hon. Friend asked me about the medical ethics of the issue. The position is clear. All research or therapy of an innovative nature in the health service, especially that involving foetuses or foetal material, requires the approval of a local research ethics committee. Such committees are established at district health authority level and include medical and nursing staff, GPs and lay members. They provide independent advice to local management on the ethical acceptability of any research proposed.
My hon. Friend asked why, if the treatment is available on clinical decision in London, it is not available in north Devon and 1 have dealt with that. He also asked what criteria should be applied in deciding priorities. Perhaps the best answer to that question is that we have recently established an NHS research and development directorate, under Professor Michael Peckham. Its programme will place emphasis on evaluations of the quality, effectiveness and cost of methods of disease prevention and treatment, and on research into the delivery and cost of health care. The answer to my hon. Friend's question rests with the new research and development directorate of the NHS management executive.

Mr. Wallace: In the letter from the Secretary of State which the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) read out, as well as saying that differences are likely to arise because of different clinical views, he said that they may arise because of different local circumstances. Can the Minister say whether those might include resources? Secondly, while I heard what he said about the fact that, in the case of Mr. Thorpe, the process in north Devon was not exhausted, the theoretical position remains that the treatment may not have been available in north Devon, but was made available in London by virtue of the fact that Mr. Thorpe had two residences and was registered in


two places. Does he accept that it is unsatisfactory that that could have happened? Patients who are very ill may find that they are under pressure to find another place to register. Given their state of health, that is not desirable.

Mr. Dorrell: Those two questions have the same answer. I stress that the principle which underlies the acceptance of a particular ECR is that any health authority will, ultimately, accept an ECR that is not wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds. A health authority retains, of course, the responsibility for ordering its own budgetary priorities.
It has never been the principle of any health service management that the acceptance of a referral means that the person referred will be seen tomorrow. To balance demand against available resources is a continuing function of health service management intra-contractually and extra-contractually. If a referral is not wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds, it is not open to a health authority, wherever it is, ultimately to refuse to honour an ECR.
We would actively encourage health authorities to ensure that their resources were used effectively. If an ECR is made that is surprising to the clinicians working in a health authority, questions should be asked to ensure that it represents a fair use of resources. The GP who made that referral should understand the options available and the implications of his referral. If the GP insists on that referral, the health authority will honour it, provided that it is not wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North asked about prescription charges and whether sufferers from Parkinson's disease should be exempt from them. He will be aware that that has been the subject of a long-standing argument in the health service. We have sought to concentrate assistance with prescription charges on those whose incomes are such that the charges cause a problem. We have not sought to extend the list of conditions which entitle a sufferer to exemption from prescription charges. We offer help through our income-related system and through the season ticket system, which limits the cost of a prescription to an individual patient.
I emphasise that I do not believe that any individual or manager in the health service has done anything in this case which departs from the principles upon which the health service is built. The district health authority received an unusual ECR and in those circumstances it was entitled to ensure that the use of resources involved in that decision was justified. It was also entitled to ensure that the GP who made the referral understood the implications of his decision.
The process in this case did not reach its logical conclusion because Mr. Thorpe—I commend him on his ingenuity, a quality with which the nation knows he is amply endowed—found a way to secure the necessary care. Nothing that I have read about the case leads me to the conclusion that anything untoward happened or that the basic and important principle of the GP's right to refer has been undermined.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.